lUBUSUlSSJSUIIUmiSM IU&^SMIUS^^ 



The Lusitania Case 



Was Bryan's Resignation 
Justified? 



BY 



HISTORICUS 



JUNIOR 



JUNE 1915 



TEN CENTS 



yftSff<8\i7ift»v^iti^if^ir/8tf^>y^ 



V 













^forp. 






The "Lusitania" Case 



Was Bryan's Resignation 
Justified ? 



BY 

HISTORICUS 

JUNIOR 




JUNE, 1915 



Published by HUGH H. MASTERSON 

170 CHAMBERS STREET 

NEW YORK CITY 






Copyright by 

Hugh H. Masterson 

1915. 



©CI.A406572 

JUL 3 1915 



PREFACE 

The privilege to express one's opinion is one of the most important 
rights inherent in our free institutions. It involves the sacred Freedom 
of the Press— the Palladium of Liberty. Especially precious is the 
exercise of this right, when ignorance, passion or prejudice has seized 
upon the customary organs of public opinion. But conditions are the 
more deeply to be deplored when the generality of our press has set 
itself to the practical suppression or distortion of the arguments favorable 
to one side of public issues and to the emphasis and glorification of the 
other. Thus we are driven, in a way, to the older methods of pamphlet- 
eering, if we would be heard. Thanks to the innate forces of the 
Americanistic principle, inherited from Britain— for many good things 
come from there — we still have the right of presenting facts and argu- 
ments that may appeal to judgment and reason, in channels other than 
the newspaper press. 

It is hoped that due consideration will be given to the important 
matters contained in this booklet, and adopted or rejected according to 
the effect they may have on the thinking reader. If the views are not 
exactly like the matter browned up every day for popular consumption, 
that is all the "greater incentive why you should apply the acid test of 
reason, and try, if possible, to form an opinion of your own. 

The immediate issue between the United States and Germany re- 
solves itself into a dialectic discussion of what is meant by the loose 
term "Humanity" in its relation to maritime warfare. To the United 
States it means a scrupulous regard for the safety of a limited number 
of passengers who may have occasion to travel within the war zones of 
Europe, while to Germany, it means safety to herself and her allies, 
numbering about one hundred and forty millions of people. The United 
States contends that non-combatants must be safeguarded irrespective of 
the circumstance that the safety of a small number of non-combatants 
may be inextricably interwoven with the safe conduct of contraband of 
war. To the Teutonic Allies "Humanity" means the preservation of their 
lives, the quick and decisive ending of the war and an emphatic reasser- 
tion of the doctrine that all nations shall be allowed to make progress 
according to their merits and that "world-commerce" shall be free and 
untrammelled. 



INTRODUCTION 

The resignation of Secretary of State Bryan should be 
effective in clearing the political atmosphere. His dramatic self- 
elimination from the Cabinet will focus public thought upon 
the question of peace or war. 

The following text of Secretary Bryan's letter of resignation 
and of the President's acceptance will indicate the issues before 
the American people: 

SECRETARY BRYAN TO THE PRESIDENT 

Washington, June 8, 1915. 
My dear Mr. President: 

It is with sincere regret that I have reached the conclusion 
that I should return to you the commission of Secretary of 
State, with which you honored me at the beginning of your 
Administration. 

Obedient to your sense of duty and actuated by the highest 
motives, you have prepared for transmission to the German 
Government a note in which I cannot join without violating what 
I deem to be an obligation to my country, and the issue involved 
is of such moment that to remain a member of the Cabinet 
would be as unfair to you as it would be to the cause which is 
nearest my heart, namely, the prevention of war. 

I, therefore, respectfully tender my resignation, to take effect 
when the note is sent, unless you prefer an earlier hour. 

Alike desirous of reaching a peaceful solution of the problems, 
arising out of the use of submarines against merchantmen, we 
find ourselves differing irreconcilably as to the methods which 
should be employed. 

It falls to your lot to speak officially for the nation ; I consider 
it to be none the less my duty to endeavor as a private citizen 



to promote the end which you have in view hy means which you 
(In not feel at liberty to use. 

In severing the intimate and pleasant relations, which have 
existed between us during the past two years, permit me to 
acknowledge the profound satisfaction which it has given me to 
be associated with you in the important work which has come 
before the State Department, and to thank you for the courtesies 
extended. 

With the heartiest good wishes for your personal welfare and 
for the success of your Administration, I am, my dear Mr. 
I 'reside! 1 1 

Ven truly yours, 

W. I. BRYAN. 



THE PRESIDENT TO SECRETARY BRYAN 

Washington, June X, 1915. 

My dear Mr. Bryan : 

1 accept your resignation only because you insist upon its 
acceptance; and I accept it with much more than deep regret, 
with a feeling of personal sorrow. 

( )ur two years of close association have been very delightful 
to me. Our judgments have accorded in practically every matter 
of official duty and of public policy until now; your support of 
the work and purposes of the Administration has been generous 
and loyal beyond praise ; your devotion to the duties of your 
great office and your eagerness to take advantage of every great 
opportunity for service it offered have been an example to the 
rest of us ; you have earned our affectionate admiration and 
friendship. Even now we are not separated in the object we seek, 
but only in the method by which we seek it. 



It is for these reasons my feeling about your retirement from 
the Secretaryship of State goes so much deeper than regret. I 
sincerely deplore it. 

Our objects are the same and we ought to pursue them to- 
gether. I yield to your desire only because I must and wish to 
bid you Godspeed in the parting. We shall continue to work 
for the same causes even when we do not work in the same way. 

With affectionate regard, 

Sincerely yours, 

WOODROW WILSON. 



No lover of America and of the ideals represented in our 
institutions, can sympathize with the notion that somehow there 
is not war enough on earth, but that America should be dragged 
into the cauldron of fire and desolation. We may grope darkly 
into war but not with our eyes open. 

In these pages our national duties with respect to the "Lusi- 
tania" will be considered. I stand upon the broad platform of 
national and international justice as the best aid and security for 
peace and national welfare. 

Mr. Bryan's consistent labors for peace are worthy of all 
praise. In our endeavor to follow Mr. Bryan's reasons for his 
resignation and to pass intelligent judgment thereon it will be 
proper to go into the "Lusitania" question fully. 



The "LiUsitania" Case 

NATIONAL MOTIVES IN TREATING 
THE "LUSITANIA" QUESTION 

No nation, that deems itself worthy of respect, can view with 
unconcern an assault upon its citizens or its sovereignty. The 
United States was clearly within its right in demanding an 
explanation of the sinking of the "Lusitania" and in its deter- 
mination to forestall occasions for a similar frightful catastrophe. 
It is an indubitable duty of every nation to protect its subjects 
both at home and abroad. 

Though this duty is imperative and unquestioned, it does not 
by any means exclude the exercise of another high duty — that of 
a calm and deliberate consideration of all attending facts and 
circumstances, and of according to a fellow sovereign nation a 
fair opportunity to be heard. 

Our administration, in its endeavor to protect American life 
and property in Mexico, has shown a wise statesmanship in con- 
sidering the circumstances of that country. Our government 
gave fair warning to American citizens to get out of the territory 
fraught with danger, and then pursued a policy of "watchful 
waiting" — a policy which has been derided by hot-headed ignor- 
ance or cool-headed selfishness — but which has so far avoided the 
loss of thousands of American lives which would have been 
sacrificed, in addition to those unhappily gone before, within the 
zone of Mexican turmoil and trouble. 

We have never had cause to regret peaceful solutions. 

When, during the Canadian Rebellion of 1838, England, on 
the plea of self-preservation, violated the territory and sovereignty 
of the United States, we permitted England to present her side 
of the case in her own way and in 1842 the dispute was finally 
settled. 

The exercise of statesmanlike prudence, which will not precipi- 
tate the greater and more stupendous evil of war, in order to 



8 

resent a comparatively smaller evil, was evidenced in the case of 
the ship "Virginius" when Spain seized American citizens thereon 
and executed them on the charge that they were aiding the Cuban 
Insurrection. Naturally American feeling ran high. But 
President Grant held his wits together. He gave Spain a full 
opportunity to state her reasons. War was avoided and history 
will not impugn either the high, honorable spirit of the United 
States, nor the wisdom and courage of President Grant. 

In the "Trent" affair war with England was happily avoided. 
In the case of the "Lusitania," nothing can be gained by hot spur 
"aspirations." The accused nation must have a fair and reason- 
able opportunity to be heard. That is an elementary principle 
of all justice. To assume the role of judge, jury and executioner, 
is repugnant to every sense of right and will not be sanctioned by 
that love of law and righteousness which is part of the bone and 
sinew of American character. 

The judicial atmosphere must be densely fogged where a 
defendant is not allowed to demur to an indictment, nor even 
to make his plea; but is curtly told that he is guilty — that the 
only question before the court is what shall be done to the offender. 

THE AMERICAN NOTES 

The American notes to Germany on the "war zone" and on 
the "Lusitania" questions seem to me to be based upon an 
erroneous impression of what are the principles of international 
law applicable to the riotous condition that now prevails in 
Europe. Another criticism, perhaps not very material, is the 
categorical form in which the law is laid down to Germany. 
Propositions of law and fact are couched in language skilfully 
phrased to import infallible correctness and unanswerable logic, 
which would exclude the possibility of debate or question. But 
the form or resoluteness of an assertion cannot save it, if it be 
erroneous and have not reason and justice to support it. The 
preliminary answer of Germany indicates a desire not to be 
deflected from her purpose to have the discussion of differences 
proceed in the usual and proper paths of fact and reason. 



I frankly avow my belief that all the main premises of the 
American "Lusitania" note arc clearly debatable and that it is 
the pari of patriotism to weigh the matter on both sides, in 
order that our Republic may be sure it is right before it commits 
its< If to a definite course of action. 



A HASTY THREAT 

Believing, as I do, that, under all the circumstances, Germany 
lias as perfect a right to proclaim a war zone as England had, 
and, believing also in the immutable right of self-preservation, 
I am constrained to take the position that we were too hasty in 
the threat that we would hold Germany to "a strict accountability/' 
and I cannot accept the statement, presented in the form of a 
postulate, that "the recent acts of the German authorities are 
in violation of American rights on the high seas." 

TO SAFEGUARD MORE THAN A HUNDRED MILLION 

PEOPLE 

If it can be demonstrated by the legal authorities hereinafter 
cited, that the German government acted not only within its 
rights and within the rules of international law, but that if it 
had acted otherwise, it would have been guilty of a treasonable 
disregard of its sacred trust to protect and safeguard more than 
a hundred millions of people, it necessarily follows that neither 
the rights of the United States nor of its citizens have been 
violated. 

EVIDENCES ( >F HUMANITY 

It will be unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that in the 
large number of instances where the German marine has had 
occasion to sink vessels, whether war vessels or otherwise, they 
have always saved combatants as well as non-combatants, when 
ever possible. 



10 

The submarines, except when it involved danger to themselves, 
not only gave time to lower boats but frequently took them in 
tow and brought them to areas of safety. 

When the German auxiliary cruisers took aboard the crews 
and passengers of vessels they treated them with kindness and 
humanity. This is proof against the theory of barbarism and 
cruelty attaching to the general methods of her maritime warfare. 
If, therefore, something has happened which would seem to run 
counter to the general character of her considerate and humane 
practices, we must look for a reason and then consider whether 
the reason given is adequate to justify the act. 

Even the shallowest mind will be able to grasp the idea that 
a people that has been so uniformly careful in saving lives, 
whenever possible, will not suddenly turn "to barbarism, and with- 
out reason, sink passenger vessels holding non-combatants, in- 
cluding women and children, without giving them an opportunity 
of escape. The act is so opposed to what any human being, even 
when depraved would care to do, that we are put to inquiry as 
to the stress of motive and circumstance that would make such 
an act seem vital to their own safety. 

GERMANY'S ISOLATION AND HER STRUGGLE 
AGAINST THE WORLD 

This brings us to the point where we must view the situation 
as it presents itself to the German authorities. If we do not put 
ourselves in their place we will not be able to judge of their 
position, and consequently will be unable to think justly and act 
wisely. 

It will not be denied that the warfare against Germany and 
her allies is both military and economic. This seems to be per- 
fectly legitimate warfare. It is intended to isolate Germany so 
completely that she will be unable to do any business with neutrals, 
thus gradually sapping her financial strength, and by preventing 
any access of food-stuffs and war materials, wear out her 
lasting power to the point of exhaustion. Germany has reason 



11 

to believe that if she is compelled to give up, her conquerors will 
practically annihilate her. 

That the present world-war is not an ordinary contest to 
which we may conceive the general rules of warfare applicable, 
but a war to the knife, in which not "subjection'' but "extinction'' 
is the object, may be gleaned from the speech of Winston Spencer 
Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, (New York Times, Sept. 
12, 1915, page 1) in which he portrayed the awful meaning of 
this war in the following fateful words : 

"It is our life against Germany's. Upon that there 
must be no compromise or truce. we must go forth un- 
flinchingly to the end." 

Thus Germany finds herself at bay, with every great power 
of Europe arrayed against her and little powers biding their 
time, and this not sufficient, the great Republic of the United 
States, not officially an enemy, but by declaration a neutral, work- 
ing with might and main, night and day, utilizing her tremendous 
financial, natural and industrial resources, apparently to a single 
end, to aid to the utmost in accomplishing the ruin of Germany. 



"THOU SHALT NOT KILL" 

If we are to consider the question of humanity we must con- 
sider not merely humanity in submarine warfare but also 
the "humanity" in furnishing the murderous instruments of war. 
Let us not talk of humanity in favor of non-combatants and forget 
all humanity in the case of those forced to fight. What humanity 
is there in making guns and ammunition to kill? Are we not 
deliberately, for purely sordid considerations, violating the man- 
date : "Thou shalt not kill?" To sell opium or habit- forming 
drugs is prohibited because of the public injury resulting; how 
can we absolve ourselves from the sin of murder if we engage 
in the traffic of the instruments of murder? 



12 



NEGLECT OF NATIONAL DUTY 

Some have sought to justify this infamous murder traffic by 
a kind of apotheosis to national unpreparedness, suggesting the 
necessity for a constant market where the unprepared nations 
may be supplied with arms. This makes a virtue of a disre- 
gard of national safety and puts a premium on neglect of official 
duty. At the present time, it is a mere excuse to permit the 
cruelty of a long-drawn-out war, which, if the belligerents had to 
depend on their own resources, would be comparatively short and 
decisive. The prohibition of the sale of arms during war would 
not only save lives but would at the earliest moment set the 
world at peace and allow belligerents and neutrals to pursue their 
normal avocations. This is a consummation in which the whole 
world would be benefitted, while the other scheme is cruel, un- 
statesmanlike, wasteful, and altogether contrary to the dictates 
of humanity and common sense. But, it is claimed, that if there 
were no such market for arms, there would be a tremendous pil- 
ing up of armament, too heavy for nations to bear. My answer 
is that war is so mischievous an evil, that any thing that tends to 
cut down its duration and to restore processes of peace, must 
easily take precedence in a choice of evils. 

A MISCONCEPTION OF THE TERM HUMANITY 

Field Marshall Prince Schwarzenberg has aptly said : "War 
and humanity are two incompatible conceptions." As war is 
a contest of force, exemplifying in grossest form" man's inhu- 
manity to man," we must realize the awful chasm between hu- 
manity and war. The maiming and butchering of fellow men 
cannot be thought of in terms of humanity. Humanity is the 
antithesis of war. To speak of "humanity" in the destruction 
of humanity is a contradiction — a paradox. The only way by 
which we can possibly think of both, is by one crowding out the 
other. 

Certain rules of amenity are observed in war, not with the 
idea of preventing the suffering incident to the weakening of 



13 

the enemy, but only when suffering is unnecessary to attain that 
object. 

If we wish to glorify humanity we cannot do so by furnishing 
the means by which the inhumanity is to be maintained. We 
must prohibit the sale of the instruments by which the war is 
carried on and if anyone tells us that it would be "unneutral" to 
stop the war, then let us answer that it is better to be "unneutral" 
than to be "inhuman." What moral being that can think straight 
would hesitate for a moment in the choice between such, honor- 
able, noble and human "Unneutrality," -and the low, miserable 
alliance in the ''Inhumanity," "that makes countless thousands 
mourn." 

No one can challenge the rectitude of our ideals. But tha 
things we do, arc not in accord with the things we preach. We 
cry, "Peace! Peace!" and yet we do the things that prolong war. 

Until our souls have been cleansed from this defilement 
let us not utter the holy name of "Humanity." 

If we had abstained from these blood profits, this world-war 
would have been over months ago, and for every dollar we make 
in this immoral and illegitimate manner we would make hundreds 
in an honest and proper way. 

\'< >RMAL tNDUSTRIES LANGUISH 

That our regular and normal industries are famishing is 
largely evidenced by the great masses of our unemployed and 
particularly by the recession of the business of the U. S. Steel 
Co. It appears that only those industries are flourishing which 
contribute to the attack and injury of Germany, Austria, Hungary 
and Turkey. Not only are these war industries flourishing, but 
they are bulging by vast extensions to our armament works and 
the creation of new shops and the conversion of others as part 
of the great symposium of death dealing industry. Sordid p. If 
for a comparatively tVn self-seeking and murderous industries 
is deemed more important than the true statesmanlike policy of 
stopping the war by withholding the means for its continuance, 



14 

and thereby allow all our legitimate industries to revive with tre- 
mendous impulse and momentum. 

FICTITIOUS NEUTRALITY 

We must not fool ourselves into the belief that such conduct 
as we are exhibiting, will receive the approval of history or 
that it is reconcilable with the humanitarian spirit that character- 
izes our nation as a whole. 

I do not blame our people. It is not their fault. It is the 
fault of the comparatively few great representatives of the money 
power who are ready to make quick money in this peculiar way. 

The judgment of history will pierce the veneer of pretence, 
and will not be satisfied with the fiction of neutrality. Let us be 
honest with ourselves. Let us not put "that flattering unci ion 
to our soul," that our most potential attack on Germany is within 
the spirit of either theoretical or practical neutrality. 

In living out our fiction of neutrality we are harming count- 
less numbers of our own people, while helping to prolong the 
contest with the result of killing and maiming hundreds of thous- 
ands of human beings that, but for our interference, would be 
alive and well and following peaceful occupations. This we do 
in the name of humanity and neutrality, and then we hold up 
our hands in holy horror if our misdeeds recoil upon us by reason 
of a condition for which we, ourselves, are responsible. All those 
men, women and children whom we mourn to-day, would have 
been safe, had we given heed to that beautiful impulse of hu- 
manity, that most truly national trait of the American character, 
that pleaded that this gruesome traffic might come to an end. 
But, as frequently happens, the national conscience was stifled — 
specious reasons were advanced why that which was prohibited 
to the government, was fine and worthy, when carried on as 
"ordinary commerce." Just as if a thing could be wrong when 
done by the government, and right when done by the people of 
whom that government is the representative. 



15 



A STATE NO WISER THAN THE HUMAN BEINGS OF 
WHOM IT CONSISTS 

James Bryce in his book, "Neutral Nations and the War," on 
page 5, gave voice to the same idea in another form : 

"But a State is, after all, only so many individuals organized 
under a Government. It is no wiser, no more righteous, than the 
human beings of whom it consists, and whom it sets up to govern 
it. 

"Has the State, then, no morality, no responsibility? 

"If it is right," says Lord Bryce, "for persons united as citizens 
into a State to rob and murder for their collective advantage b) 
their collective power, why should it be wicked for the citizens 
as individuals to do so? Does their moral responsibility cease 
when and because they act together? Most legal systems hold 
that there are acts which one man may lawfully do which become 
unlawful if done by a number of men conspiring together." 

A NEUTRAL MAY NOT FURNISH ARMS TO A 
BELLIGERENT 

I am well aware of Jefferson's dictum that "Our citizens have 
been always free to make, vend and export arms," (vol. Ill p. 
558) ; but I am also aware that he approved of Paine's proposi- 
tion of a "Maritime Compact for the Protection of Rights and 
Commerce of Neutrals," which provided: 

"And whereas it is contrary to the moral principles of neutral- 
ity and peace, that any neutral nation should furnish to the 
belligerent powers, or any of them, the means of carrying on war 
against each other ;" the powers will prohibit "the exportation or 
transportation of military stores." 

TRADE IN ARMS AS ORDINARY COMMERCE 

The point is constantly being made that dealing in arms is not 
prohibited to a neutral, if done "in the ordinary course of com- 
merce." 



16 

Forgetting for the moment that this commerce is per se, im- 
moral, we may well ask wether what the United States is 
doing is "in the ordinary course of commerce." A single and 
wholesouled devotion of almost all our national energies to the 
production and transportation of contraband of war is certainly 
not what may be termed "ordinary course of commerce," and 
when these extraordinary activities result in furnishing one side 
with contraband of war, and no effort is effectively made, or 
permitted, by which innocent or non-contraband wares may be sent 
to the other belligerents — to the great harm of our normal and 
legitimate trade and industries — the situation is certainly anomal- 
ous. The freedom of the. sea is hardly to be prized when it 
is all freedom for one side, and all foreclosure for the other. 

SALE OF ARMS ON A LARGE SCALE 

There is a high authority in Bluntschli who holds that when 
the sending of arms assumes such large proportions that, under 
the circumstances, it may appear to favor one of the belligerents, 
it should be prevented by the neutral government. 

CONTRABAND OF WAR DEFINED 

John Bassett Moore, Proc. Am. Phil. Society, Vol. 51 (Jan. — 
March 1912) at page 18 says, "The term contraband of war 
denotes commodities which it is unlawful to carry to the country, 
or to the military or naval forces of a belligerent." He cites 
Kent, Woolsey, Manning, Creasy, Holland and others, showing 
the unlawful character of contraband trade. 

During our war with Spain, a number of countries prohibited 
the furnishing of arms and ammunition of war to either party. 
Among these are Brazil, Denmark and Portugal. Japan forbade 
its subjects from supplying "arms, ammunitions, or other ma- 
terials of direct use in fighting, to the men of war, or other 
ships used for warlike purposes or privateers belonging to either 
of the belligerent powers." 



17 



GERMANY'S FRIENDSHIP IN CRITICAL TIME. 

Germany's attitude during that war is interestingly given by 
Ambassador Andrew D. White in his Autobiography, vol. 2, 
page 168: 

"As to the conduct of Germany during our war with Spain, - 
while the press, with two or three exceptions was anything but 
friendly . . . the course of the Imperial Government especially 
of the Foreign Office under Count von Bulow and Karon von 
Richthofen, was all that could be desired. Indeed, they went so 
far on one occasion as almost to alarm us. The American Con- 
sul at Hamburg having notified me by telegraph that a Spanish 
vessel, supposed to be loaded with arms for use against us in 
Cuba, was about to leave that port, I hastened to the Foreign 
Office and urged that vigorous steps be taken, with the result that 
the vessel, which in the meantime had left Hamburg, was over- 
hauled and searched at the mouth of the Elbe. The German 
government might easily have pleaded, in answer to my request, 
that the American government had generally shown itself opposed 
to any such interference with the shipment of small arms to 
belligerents, and had contended that it was not obliged to search 
vessels to find such contraband of war." 

Let us not forget the financial aid given to the United States 
during the Civil War. Germany was one of the few powers 
that loaned us large sums on our bonds when England gave finan- 
cial and military aid to our opponent. This is the way Mr. 
Andrew D. White speaks of it on page 169: 

''Of one thing I then and always reminded my hearers — 
namely, that during our Civil War, when our national existence 
was trembling in the balance and our foreign friends were few, 
the German Press and people were steadily on our side." 

A CONDITION, NOT A THEORY 

But the continued sending of arms and contraband to the 
allies spells annihilation to Germany. "It is a condition, not a 



18 

theory" that confronts the German people. For them it is a 
question of life or death. The laws under which Germany is im- 
pelled to act are not the laws made by convention nor rules of 
treaty. There is now no such thing as international law in the 
great debauch of blood and riot going on among the nations. If 
there be such law, it is "more honored in the breach than in the 
observance." 

GREAT BRITAIN'S LOVE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW 

Has Great Britain followed any law but its own will and 
convenience? When it found a German auxiliary cruiser an- 
chored within the territorial waters of Chili, did not Britain 
commit the inconceivably cowardly act of sinking the cruiser, 
against the rules of international law and in violation of the 
sovereignty of Chili? Did any one bother particularly about that 
inexcusably wanton act? But that was Britain. That was 
all right. 

SELF-PRESERVATION 

It is thus Germany's duty — driven into a corner, fighting 
against the great nations and resources of the whole world — to 
prevent her enemies from securing arms and ammunition and 
all other contraband of war, at all hazards, by all means, and ir- 
respective of the nationality that screens the instruments of 
death intended for her destruction. That this is Germany's duty 
under the immutable principle of Self-Preservation, a time- 
honored principle of international law, admits of no question. 
It is, however, more than a mere principle of international law, 
it is, in fact, the first and highest law of nations and all other 
laws, rules and regulations, must give way before it. 

Grotius, the recognized Father of International Law, in 
"Rights of War and Peace," (chap. 2, par. 7), quotes Seneca as 
follows : 

"NECESSITY, THE GREAT PROTECTRESS OF HU- 
MAN INFIRMITY, BREAKS THROUGH ALL. HUMAN 
LAWS, AND ALL THOSE MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF 
HUMAN REGULATIONS." 



19 



SUBMARINE TO FOIL WAR-OBJECTIVE OF 
ENEMIES 

For obvious reasons Germany is compelled to keep her regular 
fleet of war-vessels near her borders and can only make use of 
her submarines to frustrate the war-objective of her enemies. 
It is quite clear, as our note says, that it is not feasible for sub- 
marines always to give the notice and observe the rules applicable 
to other vessels, in the matter of search, capture or destruction 
of enemy vessels or those carrying contraband of war. 

GERMANY'S WAR ZONE 

The German War Zone notice is not essentially different from 
that proclaimed by Britain (New York Times, Aug. 12, 1914, 
page 3) to the effect that Britain would lay mines in the Norih 
Sea, in view of the methods adopted by Germany, and that "The 
British Admiralty must hold themselves fully at liberty To adopt 
similar measures in self-defence/' . . . "But before doing so 
they think it right To issue this warning in order that mer- 
chant SHIPS UNDER NEUTRAL EEAGS TRADING WITH NORTH SEA 
PORTS SHOULD TURN BACK BEFORE ENTERING THE AREA OF ( SUCII 
EXCEPTIONAL DANGER." 

The new situation, created by the advent of the submarine, 
was wisely provided for by the notice of the war zone, where 
the German submarine was intended to operate in preventing 
contraband of war reaching the British Isles. This zone must 
in effect correspond with that defined by the "Territorial Waters 
Jurisdiction Act of 1878, viz: "The rightful jurisdiction of Her 
Majesty, her heirs and successors, extends, and always has 
extended over the open seas adjacent to the coasts of the United 
Kingdom and all other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, to such 
a distance as is necessary for the defence and security of such 
Dominions." 

The right of Germany to give such notice is predicated upon 
the right and duty of Self -Preservation. This right is superior 



20 

to the right of a neutral to travel on vessels carrying contraband 
of war within a proscribed danger zone, subject to the risks of 
mine, aerial bomb and submarine. 

Why should our administration give repeated warning notice 
to Americans to leave Mexico, involving a sacrifice of their 
property and business interests, and now encourage American 
citizens whose lives are every bit as valuable as those residing in 
Mexico, to venture forth into the European arena of war. Would 
not the suggestions of prudence to keep out of trouble be even 
more imperative on the sea than on the land? 

Do we encourage our children to cross the streets, where 
automobiles are rushing to and fro? Do we say to our children, 
"You have an unalienable right to cross the street, when and 
where and as you like?" No, you will ask them to be careful. 
Now, the dictates of prudence and common sense must be fol- 
lowed, if we wish to get along in this imperfect world. If we see 
a fight in the street, we have a perfect right to get into it, but if 
we get blows we can only blame ourselves. If we see a safe 
being hoisted with danger signals near ,we take the risk if we 
walk under it — if a red flag gives us warning that a dynamite blast 
is about to come off, we have the perfect right to ignore the 
warning if we are willing to take the risk. 

RIGHTS ARE RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE 

It is an elementary rule of human conduct that we must so 
exercise our rights as not to interfere with the rights of others. 
Very few of the rights we enjoy, are absolute. As between two 
rights the lesser must give way. As the right of self-preservatii m 
is superior to all other rights, it follows as a demonstration that 
the German right to prevent the success of all measures intended 
for German destruction, is superior to the right of any non-com- 
batant to travel on ships that carry the means for German destruc- 
tion. It is inconceivable how any other conclusion can be reached. 
This is not new law. The right of self-preservation can never 
operate as an infraction of -international law. The law of self- 



21 

preservation is self-enacting. It is not made by legislation nor 
by judges, nor is it a law merely of custom or secured by con- 
vention — it is the law that is inherent in nature. It may, of 
course, be violated by ignorance, accident or design ; when violated 
by design it is known as suicide ; and no nation can be held by any 
rule of law or convention to be obliged to commit suicide. 

Let me illustrate what is meant by relative rights. Thus, 
a wagon has a right of way in a street, but is not allowed to 
block the tracks of a street car. Each has its right, but one 
is superior. The lesser right must yield. 

In applying this principle with respect to the rights of an 
American citizen on the high seas, wc must allow that the right 
of self-preservation of a belligerent nation is superior to the 
right of a neutral individual to travel upon the high seas, because 
the right of self-preservation is not at all involved in the case 
of the individual ; in other words, he does not have to travel on a 
guilty ship while a nation at war is bound to preserve its existence. 
By a "guilty" ship I mean one that gives aid to the enemy. Such 
ships he must not be caught on, for they contain the seeds of 
danger. This danger exists by virtue of the. imperative require- 
ment that they must be prevented from reaching the enemy port. 
That is the essential thing. That is the thing, above all things, 
that the belligerent must seek to prevent, for if he fails, the 
national existence is imperilled. Here comes in the great right 
and duty of self-preservation. If he can capture the ship, well 
and good; if he cannot, then he must destroy it, saving the crew 
and passengers, exerting every power to that end; but if he can- 
not destroy the ship and also save crew and passengers, then it 
becomes a question of duty, a question of the trust that he is 
charged to fulfill. As between the lives of crew and passeng r 
on the one hand and the life of his nation on the other, there is 
no alternative. Does international law require him to betray bis 
trust and to sacrifice his nation? By no means. When the life 
of his nation is trembling in the balance, there is only one thing a 
soldier, a patriot can do — and that is to do his duty! 

Please see whether I am not amply supported in my contention 



22 

of the paramountcy of the right of self-preservation over ail 
other rights, in the following citations of high masters of Inter- 
national Law — British authorities and the authorities on that 
subject in the Appendix. 

Halleck's Int. Law, Vol. 1, page 119, §18: 

"Another right immediately resulting from the inde- 
pendence of sovereign States, is that of self-preservation. 
This is one of the most essential and important rights 
incident to State sovereignty, and lies at the foundation 
of all the rest. It is not only a right with respect to 
other States, but a duty with respect to its own members, 
and one of the most solemn and important duties which 
it owes to them." 

Page 120, §19: "This right of self-preservation neces- 
sarily involves all other incidental rights which are es- 
sential as means to give effect to the principal end. And 
other nations have no right to prescribe what these means 
shall be." 

Sir R. Phillimore Int. Law, Vol. 1. Chap. 10, Page 312: 

"The Right of self-Preservation, by that defence which 
prevents, as well as that which repels, attack, is the next 
International Right which presents itself for discussion, 
which it will be seen, may under certain circumstances, 
and to a certain extent, modify the Right of Territorial 
Inviolability. 

The Right of Self-Preservation is the first law of 
nations, as it is of individuals. . . . 

All means which do not affect the independence of 
other nations are lawful for this end. No nation has a 
right to prescribe to another zuhat these means shall be, 
or to require any account of her conduct in this respect. 



23 

Page 314: "For International Law considers the Right 
of Self-Preservation as prior and paramount to that of 
Territorial Inviolability, and, where they conflict, justi- 
fies the maintenance of the former at the expense of the 
latter right/' 

This right of self-preservation, which allows an individual, 
not as an excuse, but as a matter of right to kill, if he has just 
reason to believe his life to be in danger, extends to nations as 
well. Can any one doubt that every contraband-bearing ship that 
arrives in England is a nail in Germany's coffin, if the allies' 
policy is to go on without interference or interruption ? And can 
any one doubt that Germany has the right and duty to prevent 
her defeat and extinction by using her submarines? And if it 
is not always feasible to sink these contraband-laden ships before 
giving an opportunity to save life, can any one claim that Ger- 
many must permit these nails to be driven into her coffin? If 
people will take the risk of the war zone they must bide the con- 
sequence. The loss of life, in such circumstances, is one of the 
saddest concomitants of war. 



RUSSIA SINKS NEUTRAL SHIPS DURING 
JAPANESE WAR 

The work, "Cargoes and Cruisers" or "Britain's Rights at 
Sea" by Civis, states that the following powers came to the 
"London Conference" maintaining the right to sink neutral mer- 
chantmen under certain restricted conditions : Germany, the 
United States, Austria, France, Italy and Russia. The latter 
country actually exercised that right against England, a neutral, 
in the Japanese War. The Knight Commander, Hipsang, Old- 
hamia and other British ships were sunk by Russia without it 
being ascertained, in many cases, whether they were really carry- 
ing contraband or not. England protested but no redress was 
given. 



24 



THE LUSITANIA 

In the awful case of the Lusitania, a preliminary notice had 
been given by the zone proclamation, but the notice was ignored. 
Advertisements had been made, they were not heeded. Telegrams 
had been sent, but no attention paid. The press has recited that 
personal appeals had been made, begging and pleading that pas- 
sengers should not go by that munition-laden, doomed vessel. 
Oh! the pity of it — those splendid specimens of manhood and 
womanhood and childhood, to go down to destruction, because 
the demon war demanded the sacrifice. No one with the sem- 
blance of a human heart can fail to weep at the sadness and the 
loss. Such is war. What could the German authorities do? 
Knowing, as they did, the tremendous* military consequence to 
the life and welfare of the human interests committed to their 
keeping, would it have been honorable, decent or just to allow 
this ship, filled to the brim with "Death to Germany," to reach 
port ? Does any one for a moment think that the German author- 
ities were anxious to take this human toll? Did they lure the 
innocents aboard? Did they invite them to come? Or did 
they do everything in their power, short of physical arrest, to 
keep them from going? 

THE UNITED STATES ASKS GERMANY TO GIVE UP 
ITS RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE 

In the discharge of our duty to protect American lives, can 
we reasonably demand that Germany renounce a mode of war- 
fare absolutely necessary to her self-defence? 

But Germany is asked to give up her submarine warfare. Why 
not ask at once for unconditional surrender? In the name of 
common sense, is it not enough to have the world against her, to 
have us furnish the contraband of war against her, must we also 
insist upon allowing our citizens to be put aboard to act as 
shields for the protection of arms and ammuniti< n in order to 
make sure that they shall reach their destination? Must we 



25 

go out of our way, not only to manufacture the means for 
German destruction, but also to insist that our citizenship and our 
flag be utilized for that purpose? Is that neutrality in law, 
neutrality in fact, neutrality in spirit, neutrality in the sense in- 
voked in our day of prayer, or in the neutrality proclamation of 
our president? 

America has no moral or legal right to insist that the presence 
of an American shall protect a ship carrying contraband of war 
from the only practical means by which Germany can rid herself 
of the perils, which guns, powder and ammunition mean in the 
hands of her adversaries. When these things are put aboard these 
death-dealing steamers, it must not be supposed that the presence 
of a noncombatant will give some kind of sanctity or halo to the 
vessels which should make Germany respect them and allow 
them to proceed through the war zone to their bloody destination. 

IMMOLATION ON THE ALTAR OF INTERNATIONAL 

LAW 

Is it conceivable in human nature, that a country against 
whom these dangers are directed, and having the power to pre- 
vent, would say : "Well, these ships carry a neutral flag, they aim 
at our hearts, but international law requires that we must be 
martyrs. We have no available battle-ships to intercept or cap- 
ture them, we must not use our undersea fleet bceause no law 
as to the proprieties of undersea warfare has yet been written, 
then let them pass, let them destroy us, history and the plaudits 
of mankind will praise the German Kultur and write us down as 
the finest and politest people that ever went down on the altar 
of international law." 

Ask yourselves, fellow-Americans, if, perchance, we were in 
war with England and our fleet had been destroyed or bottled 
up and we had a submarine fleet that could prevent the bringing 
of ammunition and supplies to England and that the ammunition 
and supplies were in the vessel of our enemy, and German subjects 
bad been warned by us not to go upon that vessel as we were 



26 

going to destroy it, would we, for a moment, hesitate as to what 
was our duty, our patriotic duty to do? Would the neutrals, 
by going upon that vessel have the right to prevent us from 
carrying on our warfare in a way that was demanded by our 
right of self-preservation? Would the neutral have the right 
by the infliction of his presence, practically to dictate to us the 
way in which we shall and in which we shall not carry on our 
warfare ? 

The suggestion that the German government shall not avail 
itself of such forces as are within its power to subdue its British 
antagonist on the sea, is not only inadmissible but absurd on the 
face of it. 



NEW CONDITIONS DEMAND NEW RULES 

While it is certainly true, as a general proposition, that no one 
has the right to change the law to suit his own convenience, we 
must not forget that international law is subject to growth and 
changes and that the whirligig of time produces changes when 
the time is ripe. The reasonable question arises whether cir- 
cumstances have not so altered and revolutionized conditions that 
old rules and customs no longer satisfy the needs of justice. 

On August 31, 1910, Woodrow Wilson delivered the "Annual 
Address" before the American Bar Association in which he said : 

"The old order changeth, — changeth under our very eyes, not 
quietly or equably, but swiftly and with the noise and heat and 
tumult of reconstruction. 

"In very few ages of the world has the struggle for change 
been so widespread, so deliberate, or upon so great a scale as 
this which we are taking part in. . . Society is looking itself over, 
in our day, from top to bottom, is making fresh and critical 
analysis of its very elements, is questioning its oldest practices as 
freely as its newest .... and stands ready to attempt nothing 
less than a radical reconstruction." 



27 

And then Mr. Wilson continues, in apt and sage advice which 
I include because the suggestions are of prime and vital value at 
this time : 

"I do not speak of these things in apprehension, because all is 
open and above board. This is not a day in which great forces 
rally in secret. The whole stupendous programme is planned 
and canvassed in the open and we have learned the rules of the 
game of change. Good temper, the wisdom that comes of sober 
counsel, the energy of thoughtful and unselfish men, the habit 
of co-operation and of compromise which has been bred in us 
by long years of free government, in which reason rather than 
passion has been made to prevail by the sheer virtue of candid 
and universal debate, will enable us to win through still another 
great age without revolution. I speak in plain terms of the real 
character of what is now patent to every man merely in order to 
fix your thought upon the fact that this thing that is going on 
about us is not a mere warfare of opinion. Is has an object, a 
definite and concrete object, and that object is Law, the alteration 
of institutions upon an extended plan of change." 

He then says we ought not to be "too much in love with 
precedents and the easy maxims which' have saved us the trouble 
of thinking. 1 ' 

This last quotation from the words of our President is 
of capital importance in supporting the point I wish to make, 
namely, that changing circumstances beget a need for new rules 
to fit the new requirements of right and justice and that we can- 
not be too slavishly bound by precedents that are rendered obsolete 
by the revolutionary changes of the time. Mr. Wilson goes on as 
follows : 

"The temper of the age is very nearly summed up in a feeling 
which you may put in words like these: 'There are certain things 
we must do. Our life as a nation must be rectified in certain 
all important particulars. If there; be no eaw for the change, 

IT MUST BE FOUND OR MADE. WE WIEL NOT BE ARGUED INTO IM- 
POTKNCV BY LAWYERS. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE STRUCTURE 



28 



OF OUR GOVERNMENTS SO MUCH AS IN THE EXIGENCIES OF OUR 
LIFE'." 

Some of the changes, having a distinct bearing upon the con- 
troversy between Germany and the United States, are clearly 
brought out by John Holloday Latane', Professor of History, in 
an article on "Problems of Neutrality," in The Johns Hopkins 
Alumni Magazine, March, 1915, viz: 

Page 189 : "Another development having far-reaching 
effects upon the commerce of neutrals is the action of 
England in declaring the North Sea to be a war area or 
a strategic area. It has always been the practice of 
naval squadrons when manoeuvring in the neighborhood 
of an enemy to assume jurisdiction over that portion of 
the high sea actually within their sphere of operation 
and to warn neutral vessels away. During the Russo- 
Japanese War the use of mines and wireless telegraphy 
led to an enormous enlargement of the strategic area. 
It can readily be seen that it would be of vital importance 
to a belligerent to exclude from his strategic area all 
neutral vessels equipped with zvireless apparatus. The 
use of mines has also been greatly extended and .the 
right of a belligerent to place mines in certain areas 
under certain restrictions is clearly recognized. In the 
present case Great Britain has announced to neutrals that 
the North Sea is a war area, that has been mined, and 
that if a neutral ship wishes to avoid destruction, it must, 
before entering the North Sea, signal to a member of the 
British squadron and ask for a pilot. Such action, of 
course, practically excludes from the North Sea all 
neutral vessels which do not submit to British search." 

Page 190 : "It seems now probable that this practice 
of proclaiming a strategic area will develop into a clearly 
recognised principle of law. It is, it is true, in conflict 
with the older doctrine of the freedom of the seas, but 
the use of wireless telegraphy, mines, and submarines has 
changed the conditions", of modern naval warfare so 



29 

completely that neiv practices will inevitably develop to 
meet changed conditions and will in time receive the 
sanction of law. For instance, the day of the old formal 
blockade has probably passed. It would be very difficult 
to keep a blockading squadron before a port which was 
equipped with submarines and automatic torpedoes. The 
proclamation of a large strategic area will probably take 
the place of the old blockade. Page 194 : // Germany 
could effectively blockade England with her submarines 
"she could starve England out in a few weeks/' 

The change of conditions is emphatically expressed by 
Thomas Barclay, Vice-President of the Institute of International 
Law, in an article entitled "Neutrality versus War" in the 1'Hh 
Century and After, of March, 1915, viz: 

"Submarine and aerial war, machine and the new siege 
guns seem to have produced a change equally profound, 
the effect of which is only beginning to make itself felt. 

"The present feeling on both sides is one of resent- 
ment at new methods which are growing up in response 
to the change, but change there is, and zvc must examine 
its consequences with the detachment befitting a new de 
facto situation." 

The changed methods of warfare are so apparent 
that it seems most strange to find with what tenacity rigid 
rules of international law are sought to be applied, such as for 
instance, were never intended for submarine warfare, because 
there were no submarines when the rules were made. No 
nation can be made to give up new weapons of warfare because 
they do not fit in with old rules of practice. New and improved 
methods <>f warfare will find their way into practice and what 
has always happened will happen again ; i. e. rules will grow up 
to fit the weapons, but weapons will not be abandoned because 
of the present lack of rules. You might as well expect railroads 
to be operated on laws of the post chaise, on the ground that 
changed methods of traction are not entitled to new legislation. 



30 

When the rules of visit and search grew up, the submarine 
was not known and consequently the rules appropriate to cruisers 
and other craft, cannot apply to submarines. So far as rules 
of humanity are concerned, they have no immediate relevancy 
to the bloody business of winning campaigns. The laws of war 
are not laws of "sweetness and light" ; they are laws of death 
and destruction, the very reverse of "the milk of human kind- 
ness." While war is war, it is the arbitrament of force ; and no 
injection of rules of humanity can be tolerated for the purpose 
of taking from one of the belligerents his right to battle for 
his victory by ways and means which might assure him success, 
and the denial of which will doom him to defeat. Humanity 
must seek homesteads more hospitable than fields of battle or 
water zones parcelled out by contestants as areas of havoc and 
danger. 

The nobler instincts of humanity are ever active in seeking 
peace; and, when war has unhappily engulfed the nations, our 
effort should be for peace, and not for the continuance of the 
contest. That is humanity in its true, large and noblest sense, and 
that is the "humanity" we should strive for, the restoration of 
peace not only, but the restoration of good will amongst the 
peoples most unhappily estranged. If we pursue our God-given 
mission of healing the wounds and removing the misunder- 
standings of the peoples of the earth, we shall indeed be blessed, 
and follow in the humanitarian lines so natural and congenial to 
our people. 

We now come to the consideration of the freedom of the seas. 



31 



THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 

GERMANY'S ATTITUDE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE 

SEAS 

The American note makes felicitous allusion to the constancy 
of the German attitude "with regard to the sacred freedom of 
the seas." The reference is historically just, but it would seem 
that the implied admonition could, with much better propriety, 
have been addressed to another power. 

In the subjoined collection of authorities it will appear that 
the sacred freedom of the seas has been the great international 
hope and dream for centuries. Frederick the Great was the 
champion of that desideratum, and the first to cause a summary 
of the rights of neutrals on the sea to be prepared. Germany 
has ever been in the forefront of the powers to secure the 
inviolability of private property on the sea. 

AMERICA ( )N THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 

The following ((notations from Franklin and Clay indicate 
the American feeling on the question of the freedom of private 
property on the sea. 

Benjamin Franklin in 1788: 

It is high time for the sake of humanity that a stop 
were put to this enormity. The United States are now 
suffering in all their treaties an article engaging . . . 
that unarmed merchant vessels shall pursue their voyage 
unmolested. This will be a happy improvement in the 
law of nations. 

Henry Clay in 1826: 

Private property of an enemy is protected when on 
land from seizure and confiscation. Those who do n< t 



32 

bear arms there are not disturbed in their vocations. 
Why should not the same humane exceptions be ex- 
tended to the sea? This has been an object which the 
United States have had much in their heart since they 
assumed their place among the nations. 

For further light on this subject, please see "Address of 
Charles Henry Butler" before the International Law Associa- 
tion at Buffalo, New York, Aug. 31, 1899; also "Private 
Property on the High Seas," by G. A. Finkelnburg, Am. Law 
Rev., Sept.-Oct., 1904, quoting President McKinley in favor of 
abolishing capture of private property at sea. 

A HIGH BRITISH AUTHORITY ON THE IMMUNITY 

OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM CAPTURE 

ON THE HIGH SEAS 

Oppenheim, International Law, (Vol. 2, page 184) : 

Par. 178. "But the Declaration of Paris has not 
touched upon the old rule that private enemy vessels and 
private enemy goods thereon may be seized and appropri- 
ated, and this rule is, therefore, as valid as ever here- 
tofore. On the other hand, there is a daily increasing 
agitation for the abrogation of this rule. Already in 
1785, Prussia and the United States of America stipu- 
lated by article 23 of their Treaty of Friendship (see 
note 2) that in case of war between the parties, each 
other's merchantmen shall not be seized and appropiated. 
Again in 1871 the United States and Italy, by article 12 
of their Treaty of Commerce, stipulated that in case of 
war between the parties, each other's merchantmen, 
with the exception of those carrying contraband of war 
attempting to break a blockade, shall not be seized or 
appropriated. Already in 1822 the United States made 
the proposal to Great Britain, France and Russia for a 
treaty abrogating the rule that enemy merchantmen and 
enemy goods thereon can be appropriated; but Russia 



33 

alone accepted the proposal under the condition that all 
other naval Powers should consent. Again in 1856, 
on the occasion of the Declaration of Paris, the United 
States endeavored to obtain the victory of the principle 
that enemy merchantmen shall not be appropriated, 
making it a condition of their accession to the Declara- 
tion of Paris that this principle should be recognized. 
But again the attempt failed owing to the opposition of 
Great Britain. (The italics are mine). 

At the outbreak of war in 1866, Prussia and Austria 
expressly declared that they would not seize and ap- 
propriate each other's merchantmen. At the outbreak 
,of the Franco-German War in 1870, Germany declared 
French merchantmen exempt from capture, but changed 
her attitude when France did not act upon the same 
lines." 

Note 2: Martens, R IV p. 37. Perels (p. 198) main- 
tains that this article has not been adopted by the Treat) 
of Commerce between Prussia and the United States of 
May 1, 1828, but this statement is incorrect, for article 
12 of this treaty — see Martens N. R., VII p. 615 — adopts 
it expressly. 

GREAT BRITAIN, THE ONLY FOE TO THE 
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 

But Great Britain, from first to last has been the insuperable 
obstruction to this relief. Once we have attained the Freedom 
of the Seas, there will be removed the greatest temptation that 
now lures nations into war. Commerce would then be the means 
of cementing peoples instead of dividing them. The occasions 
for war would be few and far between and ideals of peace would 
be more readily realized. 

I can easily understand why the little island of Great Britain 
will not give up this practice of legalized piracy in war. It is 
by this "black-hand" menace that she gains and controls the bulk 



34 

of the commerce of the world. She is the open or secret enemy 
of every nation that dares to seek an independent foothold in 
world-affairs. The basis of her national life is found in the 
proposition of Sir Walter Raleigh : 

"He who commands the sea controls trade and commerce; 
he who controls trade and commerce commands the wealth and 
riches of the world ; and he who controls wealth controls the 
world." 

THE SUBMARINE AS A DELIVERER 

I see before me in the submarine, the great challenger and 
destroyer of Great Britain's monoply of the sea. With that 
weight lifted from the bosom of the ocean ,there will be a new 
freedom of the seas, allowing all the people of the world to 
develop trade and industries, with every port an open door to 
receive and distribute the good things of life as a general blessing 
to all. 

If the coming of the submarine would bring such glad tidings 
of the new freedom, it would outweigh all the terrible tragedies 
of this world-conflict. How poor and deluded would our judg- 
ment be if we did not take advantage of the great opportunity 
now before us. 

GERMANY FIGHTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF A PER- 
PETUAL OPEN DOOR FOR THE COMMERCE 
OF EVERY NATION OF THE WORLD 

Germany is indeed fighting the good fight for humanity. Such 
an opportunity for securing the freedom of the seas may not 
come in a hundred years. I ask not that America lake sides 
against England, all I ask is that we shall not take sides against 
Germany, which bears on her shoulders the burden of humanity 
in its contest to shake off this "old man of the sea." Several 
such golden opportunities lay within the powers of past presi- 
dents, which were neglected. Let us not neglect it now. 



35 



GERMANY TO CONQUER THE DESPOT OF THE SEA' 

Germany, if successful, will give us this freedom of the seas. 
It has been her constant effort and her consistent contention. 
Germany can act as the deliverer of the world from the awful 
oppressor that has ruled the sea with despotic sway for centuries 
and which ruthlessly seeks to destroy the commerce of any and 
every nation that may compete with, or seek to parallel her own. 

British naval bases, extending along our Atlantic coast prac- 
tically dominate every strategical area. The alert diplomacy of 
the little isle managed to obtain treaty rights which fairly fettered 
American enterprise in seeking inter-ocean canal facilities on 
the Western Hemisphere. She keeps a vigilant eye upon our 
Panama Canal, and can scarcely forgive us for presuming to 
retain some control over it. There is no maritime nation in 
the world unmenaced by her naval stations, shrewdly distributed 
to control independent commerce of other nations. German 
audacity must be punished for threatening to interfere with 
British Proprietorship of the Sea. 

Since King Edgar (959-975), the Kings of England claimed 
dominion of all the seas about England — "mare Anglicanum cir- 
cumquaque" in the widest sense of the term. 

When Grotius wrote his "mare liberum" establishing the prin- 
ciple of the freedom of the seas, King Charles I of England de- 
manded that Grotius be punished and wrote his representative 
at the Hague: that without his sovereignty in all the British 
seas he cannot be kept safe. . "But commanding the seas, he 
may cause his neighbors and all countries to stand upon their 
guard, whenever he thinks fit." Mare liberum ''must be answered 
by a defence of Mare clausum not so much by the discourses as 
by the louder language of a powerful navy, to be better under- 
stood, when overstrained patience seeth no hope of preserving 
her right by other means." 



36 



ENGLAND OWNS THE OCEANS 

The rulers of England have, since Cromwell's time, followed 
his declaration: "England will not suffer any other flag than 
the British to float upon the ocean except by her permission." 

Sir Philip Meadows in 1689 wrote, "Observations concerning 
the Dominion and Sovereignty of the Seas; being an abstract 
of the Marine Affairs of England." He cites the preamble to the 
Act of Parliament (An 16, 17 Car II) as follows: 

"To equip, and set out to sea, a Royal Navy, for the 
Preservation of His Majesties ancient and undoubted 
Sovereignty and Dominion in the Sea.'' 
Pomeroy Int. Law : 

§155 : "From the time of Elizabeth to that of Charles 
II, the English asserted property over all the seas which 
wash the coasts of Great Britain, up to the shores of 
neighboring states, and north to the Pole. Under the 
first Hanoverian Kings, they only claimed a sovereignty. 
Queen Elizabeth seized some Hanseatic vessels lying at 
anchor off Lisbon for having passed through the sea 
north of Scotland without her permission." 

When in 1761 the French demanded peace of England, Lord 
Chatham declared in the House of Lords that " France should 
not obtain peace, unless she signed the destruction of her marine ; 
that it was enough, if the coasting trade was allowed her. and 
that England should reserve to itself the sovereignty of the 
ocean." 

Azuni, a celebrated writer on martime law, said: 

"England has always felicitated herself on her superiority 
at sea, but how shamefully has it been acquired ; by the violation 
of the sacred principles of the laws of nations; by ruining the 
commerce of every nation, and by keeping so many French sea- 
men to perish in her prisons." 



37 

SENATOR SUMNER ON BRITISH SEA POWER 

Senator Charles Sumner in his speech of January 9, 1862, on 
the Trent affair, covered the general subject of maritime right-, 
and after praising Britain for her contribution to municipal law. 
says that this Power in maritime questions arising under the law 
of nations has too often imposed upon weaker nations h.r own 
arbitrary will. "The time has been," he proceeds to say, "when 
she pretended to sovereignty over the seas surrounding the 
British Isles, as far as Cape Finistere to the south, and Vanstaten 
in Norway to the north. But driven from this princely prelensii »n, 
other pretensions, less local but hardly less offensive, were avi iwe I. 
The boast of "Rule Britannia, rule the waves," was practically 
adopted by British courts of admiralty and universal maritime 
rights were subjected to the special exigencies of British inter- 
ests. In jhe consciousness of strength, and with a navy that 
could not be opposed, this Power has put chains upon the sea. 

The commerce of the United States, as it began to whiten 
the ocean, was cruelly decimated by these arbitrary pretensions. 
American ships and cargoes, while, in the language of Karl 
Russell, "pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage," suffered from 
the British admiralty courts more than from rock or tern est. 
Shipwreck was less frequent than confiscation; and when it 
came, it was easier to bear. But the loss of property stung less 
than the outrage of impressment, by which foreigners, under the 
protection of the American flag, and also American citizens, with- 
out any form of trial, and at the mere mandate of a navy officer, 
who for the moment acted as a judicial tribunal, were dragged 
away from the deck which should have been to them a sacred 
altar. This outrage which was feebly vindicated by the munici 
pal claim of Great Britain to the services of her own subj 
was enforced arrogant]} 1 and perpetually on the high seas, where 
municipal law is silent and international law alone prevails. 

It is mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, and repeated by a British 
writer on international law, that two nephews of Washington, on 
their way home from Europe, were ravished from the protection 



38 

of the American flag, without any judicial proceedings, and 
placed as common seamen under the ordinary discipline of British 
ships of war. The victims were counted by thousands. 

If pretension so intrinsically lawless could be sanctioned by 
precedent, Great Britain would have succeeded in interpolating 
it into the law of nations. 

Protests, arguments, negotiations, correspondence, and war it- 
self — unhappily the last reason of republics as of kings — were all 
employed in vain by the United States to procure a renunciation 
of this intolerable pretension. The ablest papers in our diplo- 
matic history are devoted to this purpose; and the only serious 
war in which we have been engaged, until summoned to en- 
counter this rebellion, was to overcome by arms this very pre- 
tension which would not yield to reason." 

WILLIAM J. DUANE ON FREDERICK THE GREAT 
AND ENGLISH PRACTICES ON THE HIGH SEAS 

The Law of Nations Investigated by William John Duane, 
one of the Representatives of Philadelphia in Penn. Legislature, 
1809. 

§19: "England, having by every species of injustice 
to weak and neutral states, raised itself from insignifi- 
cance to the first rank of commercial power, found that 
to maintain its consequence it was necessary to observe 
a loose and indecisive language respecting the laws of 
nations. It adopted the long exploded authority of the 
ComoU de Mare, and obeyed it whenever it was its in- 
terest to do so. Pursuing its usurpation, in the war with 
France and Spain in 1745, a number of Prussian vessels 
laden with innocent goods, but belonging to belligerents, 
were seized and carried into British ports. Frederick 
the Great, immediately retaliated by sequestrating the 
mortgage claims upon Silesia, which England held under 
the treaties of Breslau and Dresden. Before he took 
this decided step in his own defence, and in support of 



39 

all neutral states, he had an exposition drawn up of the 
principles, by which he was actuated. This was the first 
time that the rights of neutrals were formally discussed 
and explained." 

PREDIGESTED MENTAL PABULUM 

The trouble with us is, that those who regulate what goes for 
our public opinion, do not want the war to end unless it is 
ended in favor of the British Allies. Any old reason is supposed 
to be good enough for the American public who get their mental 
pabulum usually in predigested form. The Pro-Britishness of 
our press is just now a vogue and a creed that brook neither 
reason nor argument. I do not wish to be understood as op- 
posed to the restoration and maintenance of good will between 
the United States and Britain, but I regret that it should be 
at the expense of good feeling with Germany or that of any 
other nation. We need the good will of all. 

PROFESSOR ROLAND G. USHER ON THE NEUTRAL- 
ITY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Professor Usher in the New York Tribune of May 30, 1915, 
urges the United States government to abstain from war with 
Germany because he fears that even a temporary let-up in fur- 
nishing arms and ammunition to the British Allies would enable 
Germany to gain a quick victory and wind up the war. This 
is what he says, among other things : 

"It will be apparent, therefore, that the efficiency of the de- 
fensive campaign of the Allies — to say nothing of an offensive 
campaign — will depend entirely upon the continuance of the 
stream of ammunition, equipment and food, which the United 
States is sending them every week. This is a palpable and 
well known fact, and is not questioned. The assistance of the 
United States is vital to the enemies of Germany. We are already 
doing Germany about as much damage as we can under the cir- 



40 

cumstances. We are already giving her enemies about as much 
aid as they can utilize." 

BRITISH POLICY TO PREVENT THE UNITED STATES 
FROM ATTAINING ITS HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT. 

When I consider the constant British efforts to thwart Ameri- 
can interests from the inception of our Union to this very day — 
how Britain took sides most unneutrally against us in our Civil 
War — even as we are now unneutrally aiding her against Ger- 
many — how she poisoned the wells of thought against us in 
that crucial test of our national existence by trie invention of 
tales of northern cruelty so black that the so-called "Belgian 
atrocities," absolutely pale into insignificance — how our great 
journal, the New York Times, battled most righteously against 
the unconscionable slanders cast upon American humanity and 
civilization during our Civil War — how the attacks upon our 
rights and interests have been continued without respite or inter- 
mission — compelling us to reverse our policies and legislation in 
the matter of the Panama Canal tolls because otherwise our 
president would be at a loss how to deal with exigent problems 
affecting our most intimate foreign interests — how we were net 
allowed to pursue the policy of buying ships to take care of the 
commerce denied to other nations by reason of this war — a 
policy most dear to the heart of our president, and which, if it 
had been permitted to us, would have given us a good start in 
the race for international trade — how our commerce is now 
harassed and sand-bagged — how we are being egged on to plunge 
into the maelstrom of war — which, no matter how it would re- 
sult, would vouchsafe to us no possible compensations, but would 
certainly deprive us of our principal vantage ground, of being the 
only great power unweakened by the economic and physical waste 
of war and the bitterness of feeling that so long remains to im- 
pede future commerce and good relations — how, if we keen our 
heads level long enough to think of our own interests instead 
of continuing to play the part assigned to us of pulling British 
chestnuts out of the fire — when I consider all these things and 



41 

reflect that we are, after all, a practical people, I feel that sooner 
or later the spell and hysteria will disappear, and that our Re- 
public, that assembles and assimilates the force and vigor and 
all that is best in the peoples and races of the world, so wonder- 
fully pictured by the President in his recent Philadephia speech 
to newly-made citizens, will see the wisdom of sober second 
thought, will resist the temptations of acrid passion and preju- 
dice, and will rise to the heights of reason, justice, peace, and 
good will to all mankind. 



APPENDIX 



The Appendix speaks for itself. Under various headings are 
grouped excerpts from high and instructive authorities which 
throw light upon a number of important questions involved in 
the war. They furnish ample food for thought and it is deemed 
well to let our people read what great men have said without 
attempting to sway opinion by comment. If we could only bring 
people to think for themselves, much would be gained for the 
general welfare. 



VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS IS A PART < >F THE 

TERRITORY OF Till-. NATION To WHICH 

SHE BELONGS 



In the letter of Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, of Aug. 
1S42, he states that 

"A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a 
marine league from the shore, is regarded as part of the 
territory of the nation to which she belongs, and sub- 
jected exclusively to the jurisdiction of that nation. 
(2 Moore's Digest 287). 



42 
SELF-PRESERVATION 



In Baty Int. Law at pages 100 and 101 the author refers to 
the fact that the United States government endeavored to im- 
press Mexico with the right of the United by rules of absolute 
necessity to invade Mexican territory. He shows where Secre- 
tary of State in letter to Ellis, Dec. 10, 1836, (20 S. P. 1419) in- 
voked "the immutable principles of self-defence — the principles 
which justify decisive measures of precaution to prevent irrepar- 
able evil." 

In "War Hyprocrisy Unveiled" by Albert E. Henschel, we 
find the following on "The Right of Self-Preservation," pages 
24 and 25 : 

"Germany invokes this rule, which is not only sanc- 
tioned by the principles of International Law, but which 
is divinely fixed in the instinct of every thing that lives — 
the impulse of self -protection and of self-defense. 

"It will be seen from the following expressions of the 
most eminent authorities on International Law, that the 
right of self-preservation precedes and underlies every 
other obligation. All treaties are subordinated and sub- 
ject to this basic and inherent right. It is implied, and 
read into, every treaty and contract, anything to the 
contrary said, notwithstanding. This primary right of 
existence cannot be lost or bargained away. It is 
unalienable. . . . 

BRITISH AUTHORITIES ON LAW OF SELF- 
PRESERVATION 

1. Phillimore, Int. Law, Chap 10 (CCXI) : 

"The Right of Self-Preservation is the first law of 
nations, as it is of individuals. * * * It may hap- 
pen that the same Right may warrant her in extending 
precautionary measures without these limits, and even 



43 

in transgressing the borders of her neighbor's terri- 
tory. For International Law considers the Right of 
Self-Preservation as prior and paramount to that of 
Territorial Inviolability, and, where they conflict, jus- 
tifies the maintenance of the former at the expense of 
the latter right.'' 

Twiss, Int. Law, page 3: 

"The State or Nation is thus under a primary obli- 
gation to preserve itself; in other words, Self-Preserva- 
tion is a primary duty of National Life.'' 

Page 4 : 

"The right of Self-Preservation accordingly gives 
to a nation a moral power of acting in regard to other 
Nations in such a manner as may be requisite to pre- 
vent them from obstructing its preservation or its per- 
fection. (Vattel L II C4 Sec. 49.) This Right is a per- 
fect Right, since it is given to satisfy a natural and in- 
dispensable duty." 

Hall, Int. Law, 4th Edn., p. 281 : 

"In the last resort almost whole of the duties of 
states are subordinated to the right of self-preserva- 
tion." 

L. G. C. Laughton (United Service Mag., Vol. 29 (N. S.) 
1904, page 226, in a very interesting article on "Belligerents 
and Neutrals," says: 

"It is an axiom of international law that a State has 
the right to take measures to secure its existence." 

THE RIGHT OF SELF-PROTECTION NULLIFIES 
TREATIES 

Pomeroy, Int. Law, 351, cites Martens, Droit des Gens, 
Vol. II, Ch. II, Sec. 52: 

"* * * Nevertheless, the right of self-preserva- 
tion authorizes a nation to recede from a treaty which 



44 

it cannot fulfill without causing its own destruction ; 
and this faculty is even a tacit condition in all treaties, 
and especially in alliances." 

Ortolan is then cited : 

"Nevertheless, some publicists have observed that 
when a treaty leads directly to the destruction of the 
state, that state has the right to treat it as null. This 
is an evident and incontestible fact, based upon the 
right of self-preservation. For moral beings, as well 
as for individuals, there can be no obligatory promise 
when this promise is of suicide.'' 

LAW OF NECESSITY 

< >ppenheim, Int. Law, Vol. 1. Page 177: 

§ 129. "From the earliest time of the existence of 
the Law of Nations, self-preservation was considered 
sufficient justification for many acts of a State which 
violate other States." . . . "Thus, self-pres.rvation 
is a factor of great importance for the position of the 
States within the Family of Nations, and most writers 
maintain that every State has a fundamental right of 
self-preservation." Page 178: "Such acts of violence 
in the interest of self-preservation are exclusively ex- 
cused as are necessary in self-defence." Page 179: 
"The reason of the thing makes it, of course, necessary 
for every State to judge for itself when it considers a 
case of necessity has arisen, and it is, therefore, im- 
possible to lay down a hard and fast rule regarding the 
(|U<.'stii>n when and when not a State can take recourse 
to self-help, which violates another State. Every thing 
depends upon the circumstances and conditions of the 
special case." 

Remarks on The Letter of "Historicus," Charles G. Loring, 
Boston, 1864: 



45 

Page 39: "No nation is bound to stand unresistingly 
quiet and behold the means of its destruction furnished 
to its enemy by a powerful neighbor. The duty of self- 
preservation, lying at the foundation of all law, civil and 
national, if conflicting with an otherwise lawful right of 
trade, confers the right of preventing and repressing such 
aid by forcible resistance, with all the resources at com- 
mand, including those of war, if needful for the purpose. 
Such aid, under such circumstances, however, otherwise, 
consistent with the law of nations, becomes substantially 
complicity or alliance with the enemy, and may be law- 
fully treated as such." 

Thomas Waraker, L.L.D., "Naval Warfare of the Future" 

Page 24: "By all means, let every one who has any 
authority or influence inculcate the duty and the ex- 
pediency of conforming national as well as individual 
action to rules and principles. But at the same time 
let not caution be lulled to sleep, and a foolish expecta- 
tion be formed that these rules in the smallest degree 
enable a nation to dispense with a single safeguard— a 
single weapon of defense. It is when the strong man is 
armed that his goods are at peace. No one supposes 
that he is disparaging morality or law, because he pro- 
vides himself with bolts and bars and other means of 
self-defense, to which, in the last resort, he may find 
himself driven; and, similarly, the provision of every 
possible means of national self-defense implies no disre- 
gard for International rights and duties, but is a pure- 
matter of prudence, and is the first of the duties which a 
government owes to its subjects— a duty which the sub- 
ject should use his best endeavors to urge upon his 
government." 

Page 36: "It could never be pretended that any law 
or morality could require an independent nation to 
destroy itself, or deprive itself of the means of self- 



46 

defense, or so to weaken them as to facilitate its own 
subjugation." 

Lord Ashburton, British plenipotentiary to Mr. Webster, Sec. 
of State, July 28, 1842 : 

"There are possible cases in the relations of nations, 
as of individuals, where necessity which controls all 
other laws, may be pleaded ; but it is neither easy nor safe 
to attempt to define the rights or limits properly assign- 
able to such a plea. This must always be a subject of 
much delicacy, and should be considered by friendly na- 
tions with great candor and forbearance. The in- 
tentions of the parties must mainly be looked to.'' 

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State to Lord Ashburton, Aug. 6, 1842 : 

"Undoubtedly it is just, that, while it is admitted that 
exceptions growing out of the great law of self-defense 
do exist, those exceptions should be confined to cases 
in which the necessity of that self-defense is instant, 
overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no 
moment for deliberation." 

Alexander Croke, L.L.D., Advocate in Doctors' Commons 
in his "Remarks on Mr. Schlegel's Work on Visitation of Neu- 
tral Vessels under Convoy (1801), says at page 18: 

"It is to be observed that the rights of war externally 
against the Public Enemy (in which are included all his 
individuals) are naturally and originally unlimited. 
Primarily, and by the natural law of nations, which is 
nothing but the law of nature and universal justice trans- 
ferred from individuals to communities, all modes of 
hostile violence are legally practicable and the use of one 
instrument of destruction is just as legitimate as another. 
The practice of mankind influenced by different consid- 
erations of humanity, and convenience, has agreed in 
confining the ordinary operations of war within certain 



47 

modified bounds; and so far as universal practice has 
imposed a limitation, so far that limitation is to be re- 
spected in the common exercise of hostility ; though per- 
haps extreme cases may be put in ivhich the original 
rights of self-defense might warrant a recurrence to a 
degree of hostile activity beyond it." 

Wm. Beach Lawrence Argument Refore Mixed Comm. on 
British and American Claims, 1873, page 3: 

"All the pretence which a belligerent can have to inter- 
fere with the unrestricted use of the ocean by neutrals, 
arises from considerations of self-defence or from the 
right to prevent acts, which in their result, may tend to 
benefit the enemy/* 

The Reality of War, an introduction to Clausewitz, by Major 
Stewart L. Murray, late Gordon Highlanders— 1 ( J09 : 

"To introduce into the philosophy of ivar itself a prin- 
ciple of moderation would be an absurdity. We. there- 
fore repeat our proposition that war is an act of violence 
which in its application knozvs no bounds." 

The author cites with approval General von der Gnltz, p. 112: 

"A state is not justified in trying to defend itself with 
only a portion of its strength, zvhen the existence of the 
whole is at stake." 

Article 49 of the Declaration of London, says: 

"As an exception, a neutral vessel .... which would 
be liable to condemnation may be destroyed, if the ob- 
servance of Article 48 ivould involve danger to the safety 
of the warship or to the success of the operations in 
which she is engaged at the time!' 

Grotius in "Rights of War and Peace" : 

Page 76: "It has already been proved that when our 
lives are threatened with immediate danger, it is lawful 



48 

to kill the aggressor, if the danger cannot otherwise be 
avoided. * * * We must observe that this kind of 
defense derives its origin from the principle of self- pre- 
servation, zvhich nature has given to every living 
creature, and not from the injustice or misconduct of the 
aggressor . . . For I am not bound to submit to the 
danger or mischief intended, any more than to expose 
myself to the attacks of a wild beast." 

Page 77 : "Thomas Aquinas, if taken in a right sense, 
has justly observed, that in actual self-defense, no man 
can be said to be purposely killed. Indeed, it may some- 
times happen that there is no other way for a person to 
save himself, than by designedly doing an act, by which 
the death of an aggressor must inevitably ensue. Yet 
here the death of any one was not the primary object in- 
tended, but employed as the only means of security, 
which the moment supplied." 

Page 85 : "What has been already said of the right 
of defending our persons and property, though regard- 
ing chiefly private war, may nevertheless be applied to 
public hostilities, allowing for the difference of circum- 
stances." 

STATE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES OF FOREIGN 

SUBJECTS THROUGH LEGITIMATE ACTS OF 

MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES 



Oppenheim Int. Law, (Vol. 1, Sec. 154) : 

"An act of a State injurious to another State is never- 
theless not an international deliquency, if committed 
neither wilfully and maliciously, nor with culpable negli- 
gence. Therefore, an act of a State committed by right 
or prompted by self-preservation in necessary self-de- 
fense does not contain an international delinquency, 
however injurious it may actually be to another Stole. 



49 

And the same is valid in regard to acts of officials or 
other individuals committed by command or with the 
authorization of a government." 

Oppenheim, Int. Law, (Vol. 1, Page 163) : 

"But it must be specially emphasized that a State 
never bears any responsibility for losses sustained by 
foreign subjects through legitimate acts of administrative 
officials and military and naval forces. Individuals who 
enter foreign territory submit themselves to the law of 
the land, and their home state has no right to request 
that they should be otherwise treated than as the law of 
the land authorizes a state to treat its own subjec's." 

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State to Mr. Burns, M. C, April 26, 1858 : 

"When Mr. Butts domiciled himself in Nicaragua, he 
knew that the Republic was in a state of war, and as- 
sumed therefore the necessary hazards which attend the 
residence even of a neutral in a belligerent country. In 
estimating these hazards, he probably weighed against 
them the profits which he hoped to derive from this 
business,, and if he has been disappointed in his ex- 
pectations, this government can only lament that it is 
unable to afford him any remedy." 

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State to Count Wydenbruck, Austrian 
Minister, Nov. 16, 1865: 

"It is believed that it is a received principle of public 
law, that the subjects of foreign powers domiciled in a 
country in a state of war, are not entitled to greater 
privileges or immunities than the other inhabitants of 
the insurrectionary district. If, for a supposed purpose 
of the war, one of the belligerents thinks proper to de 
stroy neutral property, the other cannot legally be re- 
garded as accountable therefor. By voluntarily remain- 
ing in a country in a state of civil war, they must be held 



50 

to have been willing to accept the risks as well as the 
advantages of that domicile. The same rule seems to 
be applicable to the property of neutrals, whether that 
of individuals or of governments in a belligerent country. 
It must be held to be liable to the fortunes of war." 

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State to Mr. Niles, Oct. 30, 1871 : 

"It is an undoubted principle of public law that when 
one power, in the exercise of its sovereign rights, deems 
it proper to exercise acts of hostility against the territory 
of another, the citizens of a foreign state, residing within 
the arena of war, whose property may be injured or 
destroyed during the war, have no right to demand com- 
pensation on the ground of their being citizens of a 
third power, for losses which the necessity of war may 
bring upon them in common with the citizens of the 
state invaded." 

Statement of Spanish Treaty Claims Comm., April 28, 1903 

(8) . . . "It is undoubtedly the general rule of 
international law that concentration and devastation are 
legitimate war measures. To that rule aliens as well as 
subjects must submit and suffer the fortunes of war. 
The property of alien residents, like that of natives of 
the country, when in the 'track of war,' is subject to 
war's casualties, and whatever in front of the advancing 
forces either impedes them or might give them aid when 
appropriated, or if left unmolested in their rear might 
afford aid and comfort to the enemy, may be taken or 
destroyed by the armies of either of the belligerents ; and 
no liability whatever is] understood to attach to the gov- 
ernment of the country whose flag that army bears and 
whos'e battles it may be fighting." 



51 
CHARACTER OF WAR 



Two speeches by David Urquhart (Jan. 20 and 27, 1862) 

THE RIGHT OF SEARCH 

Page 31 : "A declaration of war is a sentence of 
death — a sentence of death pronounced by one people 
against another people. If so, then it follows that you 
recognize that that awful sentence shall only issue justly, 
and then that no one shall interfere to interrupt the exer- 
cise of the means by which it shall be carried into exe- 
cution." 

* * * "Having come to the decision to pronounce 
that sentence against another people, we should be 
traitors to the law and not only to the lazv but to our- 
selves, if we suffered any one to come between us and 
the execution of that necessary duty." 

Thomas Waraker, L.L.D., Barrister at Law (Page 20) : 

"naval warfare of the future" 

"War is the state of nations contending in arms. The 
contention is, therefore, one of force, not of right, and 
each must put forward such force as it possesses in such 
mode as it deems most advantageous to itself, i. e., as 
will put the greatest amount of pressure upon the oppon- 
ent to reduce him to submission." 

Page 56 : "War is not a game which is played accord- 
ing to certain rules for the amusement of spectators, or 
a trial of skill in which the performers are to be handi- 
capped and placed at the outset as nearly as possible 
upon an equality, but a life and death struggle, in which 
each side must and will, and ought to put out his entire 
strength in the way that he can best use it, and any pre- 
vious engagements not so to use it are worthless and 



52 



void. The only rule of war is the rule of winning cam- 
paigns. No one will, it is to be presumed, deny that war 
is a contest of force. To talk of a contest of force in 
which either side is not to use his force is a contradiction 
in terms." 

Page 58: "All unnecessary infliction of suffering is 
wanton, and it must be unnecessary, if it produce no 
result. The warrior has to ask himself, not if a given 
course of action will cause suffering, but whether it will 
produce the effect for which he adopts the action — vis. 
the reduction of his opponent — and will do so at the 
least possible cost to himself. Criterion of the legality 
of warlike measures, as between the belligerents, there 
is none — of the moral justification there is but one — 
that above stated — the productive character of the course 
adopted" 

Page 67 : "War itself is so tremendous an evil that, 
if its existence can be justified, all modes of carrying 
it into effect must be justifiable." 



Thomas Gibson Bowles, M. P., London, 1900 (Page 20) 

THE DECLARATION OF PARIS OF 1856 

"The final object and end of all warfare is to reduce 
the enemy to submission ; and unless the operations of 
naval warfare can be made so to act upon the enemy as 
to diminish his material resources for the continuance of 
the war, so to injure him so to produce weakness and 
weariness, and so to increase that weakness and weari- 
ness as to bring him nearer to submission— unless this 
effect be caused, the operations themselves, however 
brilliant or glorious, must be held to ha\ t failed in their 
object." 



53 



Phillimore Int. Law, (Vol. 3, Page 114): 

"War is a lawful mode of obtaining redress and ad- 
justing differences between Independent States, and as 
this end requires that compulsory means of destruction 
and distress should be inflicted upon the persons and 
property of the enemy, no neutral state has a right, f Mi- 
llie sake of private advantage, to prevent these compul- 
sory means from producing their effects." 

Page 115; "The rules, and principles of war, arc the 
same . . . whether it be carried on by sea or by land." 



RISKS ( )F N< >N-C< >MBATANTS 



Halleck's Int. Law 4th Ed., (108, Page 2): 

"They, therefore, have no right to take the lives of 
non-combatants * * * unless the same should be 
necessary for the object of the war:" (Citing \ 
Book III. ch 8 § 138; Wheat. Elem. Int. Law. pt. 4. ch 2, 
^2; Rutherworth, Institutes b. 2 ch 9 § 15 ;Burlamaqui 
c 5 pt. 4 ch 6; Cornn v. Blackburne, Doug. Rep. p. 644; 
De Felice, Droit de la. Nat. C. 2 lee. 25, Riquelm?, Dere- 
cho Pub. lib. L tit. 1. cap. 12). 

Grotius, "Rights of War and Peace, i Page 293) : 

"It frequently occurs as a matter of enquiry, how far 
we are authorized to act against those, who are neither 
enemies, nor wish to be thought so, but who supply our 
enemies with certain articles. . . . As to conveying 
articles of the first kind, it is evident that any one must 
be ranked as an enemy, who supplies an enemy with the 
means of prosecuting hostilities." . . . "If that 
power, for instance, is besieging a town, or blockad'ng 
a port, . . . the person who furnishes the enemy 



54 



with supplies, and the means of prolonged resistance, 
will be guilty of an aggression and injury towards that 
power." 

DUTIES OF NEUTRALITY 



The U. S. vs. Steamship "Meteor," closing argument in be- 
half of the U. S., by Sidney Webster, (1866), quotes (page 11) 
an article in the London Lazv Times, for Sept. 19, 1863 : 

"If a nation permits anything to be organized and 
constructed within its boundaries, what is plainly de- 
signed for the use of one belligerent, it is guilty of a 
very clear breach of neutrality against the other. By a 
loose, and, as we believe, highly improper reading of the 
law, it has been taken for granted that it is not against 
the principles of interntaional law for a neutral power 
to permit its subjects to sell munitions of war to a belli- 
gerent power. It is held that a contrary principle wou'd 
interfere too much with the ship-builders of the Mersey 
and the Clyde, and the gun-makers of Birmingham, to 
be tolerated. But it appears to us that there are some 
things which in the estimation of rightly thinking men, 
may be of even higher importance than the prosperity 
of the Birkenhead ship-owners or the Birmingham gun- 
makers, and, among them we may be permitted to reckon 
a reverence for lazv and the preservation of the national 
honor. It may be that, if we were to put the spirit of the 
law into force — that spirit which arms the proclamation 
of the Queen when she prohibits the sale of all munitions 
of war — by preventing ships evidently built for warlike 
purposes, and cargoes of lethal weapons, except upon 
proof that they were not to be used in a quarrel as to 
which we are neutral ; it may be that in such a case a 
few men would have to get rich more slowly ; but, at any 
rate, the nation would be saved from the imputation of 
the guilt of blood — a guilt which is equally abhorrent 
where it sullies the reputation of a man or of a people." 



55 
Thomas Gibson Bowles, M. P., (Page 68) : 

DECLARATION OF PARIS 

"Neutrality consists in standing utterly aloof from 
taking any part whatever in a struggle between belliger- 
ents. It consists not in impartiality in the conflict but 
in abstention from it ; and this shows us at once that 
a neutral cannot have any rights at all as a neutral, for 
no rights can accrue to him out of a conflict with which 
he has nothing to do. He retains the common rights that 
all nations have in time of peace ; he neither does nor 
can gain any new rights, but he has also, arising out of 
the war, the obligation of his neutrality, which lies in 
this, that he must now exercise his common rights so as 
not to take any part in the war. He has no new rights, 
but he has a new duty, that of complete abstention from 
the conflict, and unless he fulfills that duty, he ceases to 
be neutral. * * * The rights of a state fighting for 
national existence are admitted and declared to be su- 
perior to the convenience of a state trading for individual 
profit. . . The principle is, therefore, clear, that 
when a zvar arises even the common rights of the neutral 
are subject to limitation in their exercise so far as that 
limitation has nozv become necessary from the new state 
of things, in order to secure that the neutral shall be neu- 
tral and shall abstain from the zvar." 

1 lallcck's Int. Law : 

"Nor is it correct to say that if the neutral merchant 
is willing to incur the risk of capture and condemnation, 
he may engage, with entire security of conscience, in a 
trade forbidden by the lazv of nations. The act is wrong 
in itself, and the penalty results from this violation of 
moral duty, as zvell as of lazv. The duties imposed upon 
the citizens and subjects flow from exactly the same prin- 
ciple as those which attach to the government of the 



56 



neutral states. 'Where he supplies to the enemy,' says 
Duer, "munitions or other articles contraband of war, or 
relieves with provisions, or otherwise, a blockaded port, 
although his motives may be different, his moral delin- 
quency is precisely the same. By these acts he makes 
himself personally a party to a war, in which, as a neu- 
• tral, he had no right to engage, and his property is justly 
treated as that of an enemy. (Citing Duer, On Insur- 
ance, vol. 1, pp. 531, 754, 755, 772-775 ; the 'Shepherdess', 

5 Rob. 264; Pistoye et Duverdy, Traite des' Prises, tit. 

6 ch. 2 sec. 3; Hautefeuille, Des Nations Neutres, tit. 15. 

By George Bemis, Boston, 1866, (Page 176) : 

V 

AMERICAN NEUTRALITY 

"I cannot sympathize with that defense of commerce 
which would justify the pursuit of neutral gain even 
to selling weapons of war on the battlefield to co.n- 
batants whose hands are red with slaughter. If such 
sort of traffickers insist upon the right of plying then- 
vocation, I say, let them be subjected to the hazards and 
hardships of war. In my view, a transport or a store- 
ship is as much an auxiliary to war as a fighting-ship 
made such by means of the stores and troops which that 
transport is intended to supply, and if we forbid the 
furnishing of the latter, to preserve neutrality, why not 
the former as well? 

"Some may reply to this suggestion, perhaps, that the 
supplying of transports to a belligerent falls within that 
class of things which a neutral may lawfully do, pro- 
vided he does it for both parties indiscriminately. That 
seems to have been President Pierce's point of view, in 
his annual message of December, 1854. But I protest 
against this whole notion of balancing a wrong done to 
one party, by holding out that we are ready to do the 
same thing impartially for the other. So far as Ameri- 



57 

can law has lent an ear to this doctrine, it has been pfett) 
well exposed in the 'Alexandra' law hearing in a discus- 
sion over the "Estrella" case between Baron Bramwell 
and Sir Roundell Palmer — the latter of whom stood up 
for Judge Livingston's "pinion in that case as long as 
he could ('Alexandra' Law Hearing, pp. 328, etc.). 
Sir Robert Phillimore says very tersely and very truly 
of this sort of balancing of wrongs, 'that it may be im- 
partial, but it certainly is not neutral." (3 Com. Int. 
Law, p. 221). 

Page 179: "Need I ask, then — taking warning from 
the late experience of the Confederate rebellion and its 
almost indifinite prolongation through the aid furnished 
our seccessionists by British Enfield riflles and British 
Whitworth and even Armstrong cannons- whether it is 
worth our while to any longer advocate a doctrine of 
neutrality, fraught with such pernicious consequences to 
us as belligerents?" 

Stat, of U. S. 1838, ch. 31, (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 5, 
page 212, § 1): 

"Be it enacted, etc., that the several collectors, naval 
officers, etc., of the United States, shall be * * re- 
quired to seize and detain any vessel, or any arms or 
munitions of war, which may be provided or prepared 
for any military expedition or enterprise against the ter- 
ritory or dominion^ of any foreign prince or state, etc." 

Senator Morton, Jan ID, 1870, introduced similar bill 41 
Cong., 2d session. 

Thomas Waraker, 1..I..I »., i Page 119) : 

NAV \l. W VRF \KK OF I'll K FUTURE 

"The neutral asserts that he ha-- no interest in the 
war. and therefore ought .to be unaffected by it. But 



58 



in the first place it is difficult to see how he can be en- 
tirely unaffected. He must be affected as regards block- 
ades and carriage of contraband. * * * He gives 
himself interest in, and he makes himself affected by 
the war by carrying the belligerents' commerce, and if 
he claims to protect that commerce, he makes himself 
so far a participator in the war, and passes out of the 
true character of a neutral. In whatever degree it is 
important for the belligerent that he should capture his 
enemy's property, in the same degree its protection by 
the neutral is detrimental to him, and obstructive of his 
military operations. The neutral can only be absolutely 
unaffected by the war if he keep himself clear of all 
intercourse with either belligerent." 

Page 120: "The province of the neutral is not to in- 
terfere in the operations of either belligerent. The very 
term 'neutral' implies that no aid is to be given to either 
of the conflicting parties. Any such aid involves partici- 
pation in the strife, and to obstruct one is to aid the 
other. If you and I were fighting, Jones would not be 
neutral if he struck me, or if he saved you from my 
blow. Nor would it mend the matter that he knocked 
you down too, or shielded me too, from your blows. 
He would probably only prolong and exacerbate the con- 
test-and enlarge its field, as whichever of us might prove 
the victor would desire to thrash him for his pains. 

"Similarly in International contests, neutrality con- 
sists, not in equally obstructing or giving equal aid to 
both belligerents, but in absolute non-interference. The 
aid or the obstruction cannot be equal to both. It must 
act adversely to the stronger and favorably to the 
weaker power, as it must diminish the ratio of the su- 
periority of the former. 

"For the neutral to claim the right to protect the 
property of the belligerent from the attacks' of his enemy 



59 

is a claim to obstruct the one and to aid the other party 
and is an interference in the operations of war." 

Mr. Paul Fuller in the Atlantic Monthly, February, 1915, 
page 145, collates some of the authorities on neutrality as follows: 

"Vattel defines neutrality as strict impartiality toward 
the belligerents in what relates 'solely to war', with the 
obligation to give no assistance, nor furnish anything of 
direct use in war. Hiibner defines it as complete in- 
action with reference to the war and exact impartiality 
with regard to the means of carrying it on. 

"Hautefeuille defines the neutral nation as that which 
abstains from taking part in the conflict, and from any 
act of hostility, direct or indirect. 

"Bluntschli defines neutral states as those who take 
no part in military operations in favor of or tot he detri- 
ment of either of the belligerents, and neutrality," he 
adds, "consists in maintaining peace on one's own ter- 
ritory, and taking no part in the war between third 
parties. . . . 

"Hall tell us 'The Neutral State is bound not to com- 
mit any act favoring one of two belligerents in matters 
affecting their war' . . . Jefferson . . . lays down the 
same rule, that 'no succor should be given to either in 
men, arms, or any thing else directly serving for the 
war'. Mr. Fuller then cites Lord Ilowick that 'a strict 
and honest impartiality, so as not to afford advantage in 
the war to either, and so as not to render assistance to 
one of the belligerents in escaping the effect of the 
other's hostilities' is what honest neutrality consists of." 



60 



GROWTH, PROGRESS AND CHANGES OF 
INTERNATIONAL LAW 



Oppenheim Int. Law, (§ 34, vol. 1) : 

"The growth of the law through custom goes on very 
slowly and gradually, very often too slowly to he ahle to 
meet the demands of the interests at stake. New in- 
terests and new inventions very often spring up with 
which customary law cannot deal. Circumstances and 
conditions frequently change so suddenly that the ends 
of justice are not met by the existing customary law of 
a state." 

Thomas Waraker, L.L.D., (Page 26) : 

"naval, warfare; of tuf future" 

"Every custom has originated in a repetition of cer- 
tain actions under given circumstances, and the action 
was first introduced as appearing to the actors to be ex- 
pedient as tending to a result which they desired to ac- 
complish, and the same expediency leads to a repititii >n of 
the action, until at length it forms a custom and is acted 
upon without direct reference to its expediency, but 
simply because it is the custom. 

Page 28: "Thus, if action be taken opposed to gen- 
eral principles, it will be endeavored to show that special 
circumstances take the particular case out of the scope 
of one general principle, and cause another to be applic- 
able, as Sir W. Scott did when dealing with the English 
orders in Council, 1806, 1809. The confiscation of neu- 
tral goods was contrary to the general principle, but 
Napoleon's Berlin decree having made them under cer- 
tain circumstances confiscable, the English acton pro 
ceeded on the principle of reciprocity and recipn city 
was a principle recognized by International Law." 



61 

J. Mac Donnell, Esq., Master of the Supreme Court. Jour- 
nal Royal United Service Inst. Vol. 42 (1898) page 787: 

RECENT CHANGES IN THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BELLIGERENTS 
AND NEUTRALS ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 

"International law consists of a collection of usages, 
practices, traditions, rules and conventions never fixed, 
though endeavors are constantly being made to stereo- 
type this collection. Never was this state of transition 
more marked, never were changes more rapid and fre- 
quent, than at present. Enternationl law is not a mere 
store-house of rules coming down from a far-off past, 
it is a living and a growing law, some parts of it once im- 
portant are in process of decay; in other parts is life 
and the promise of it. International law has no reo >g 
nized organ or mouth-piece — no Parliament or Congress 
to declare, or amend its measures. Yet it changes — 
sometimes rapidly; never more rapidly than today. By 
few expounders of international law is sufficient notice 
taken of this element of change. And so there is an 
international law known to soldiers, diplomatists, and 
men of affairs, and another partly obsolete but still 
taught in hooks." 



MR. BRYAN TELLS IMS REASONS l-< >R 
LE WING C U3INET. 



Differs with Wilson on Question of International Commission 
to Settle Trouble with Germany and as to Warning Americans 
Against Sailing on Belligerent Ship-. 

Washington, June 9. — -Just as the new American note to Ger 
many was started on its way over the wires today, Mr. Bryan gave 
out this statement : 



62 

"My reason for resigning is clearly stated in my letter of 
resignation, namely, that I may employ as a private citizen the 
means which the President does not feel at liberty to employ. I 
honor him for doing what he believes to be right, and I am sure 
that he desires, as I do, to find a peaceful solution of the problem 
which has been created by the action of the submarines. 

"Two of the points on which we differ, each conscientious 
in his conviction, are: 

"First, as to the suggestion of investigation by an international 
commission; and, 

"Second, as to warning Americans against traveling on bel- 
ligerent vessels or with cargoes of ammunition. 



SAYS TREATY RULES APPLY TO GERMANY 

"I believe that this nation should frankly state to Germany 
that we are willing to apply in this case the principle which we 
are bound by treaty to apply to disputes between the United 
States and thirty countries with which we have made treaties 
providing for investigation of all disputes of every character and 
nature. 

"These treaties, negotiated under this Administration, make 
war practically impossible between this country and these thirty 
governments, representing nearly three-fourths of all the people 
of the world. 

"Among the nations with which we have these treaties are 
Great Britain, France and Russia. No matter what disputes may 
arise between us and these treaty nations, we agree that there 
shall be no declaration of war and no commencement of hostilities 
until the matters in dispute have been investigated by an inter- 
national commission, and a year's time is allowed for investigation 
and report. 



63 



U S. SHOULD MAKE ARBITRATION OFFER. 

"This plan was offered to all the nations without any excep- 
tions whatever, and Germany ivas one of the nations that accepted 
the principle, being the twelfth, I think, to accept. No treaty was 
actually entered into with Germany, but I cannot sec that that 
should stand in the way when both nations indorsed the principle. 

"I do not know whether Germany would accept the offer, but 
our country should, in my judgment, make the offer. 

"Such an offer, if accepted, would at once relieve the tension 
and silence all the jingoes who are demanding war. Germany has 
always been a friendly nation, and a great many of our peop'e 
are of German ancestry. Why should we not deal zvith Germany 
according to this plan to which the nation has pledged its support. 

"The second point of difference is as to the course which 
should be pursued in regard to Americans traveling on belliger- 
ent ships or with cargoes of ammunition. 

"Why should an American citizen be permitted to involve his 
country in war by travelling upon a belligerent ship when he 
knows that the ship will pass through a danger zone? 

"The question is not whether an American citizen has a right, 
under international law, to travel on a belligerent ship; the ques- 
tion is whether he ought not, out of consideration for his country, 
if not for his otm safety, avoid danger when avoidance is 1 
possible. 

"It is a very one-sided citizenship that compels a government 
to go to war o-eer a citizen's rights and yet relieves the citizens of 
all obligations to consider his nation's welfare. 

"I do not know just how far the President can legally go in 
actually preventing Americans from traveling on belligerent 
ships, but I believe the government should go as far as it can. 
and that in case of doubt it should give the benefit of the doubt 
to the government. 



64 



PRECEDENT FOR CAUTION TO PUBLIC 

"But even if the government could not legally prevent citizens 
from traveling on belligerent ships, it could, and in my judgment, 
should earnestly advise Americans not to risk themselves or the 
peace of their country and I have no doubt that these warnings 
would be heeded. 

"President Taft advised Americans to leave Mexico when 
insurrection broke out there, and President Wilson has repeated 
the advice. This advice, in my judgment, teas eminently wise, and 
I think the same course should be followed in regard to warning 
Americans to keep off vessels subject to attack. 

"I think, too, that American passenger ships should be pro- 
hibited from carrying ammunition. The lives of passengers ought 
not to be endangered by cargoes of ammunition, zvhether that 
danger comes from possible explosions within or from possible 
attacks from without. Passengers and ammunition should not 
travel together. The attempt to prevent American citizens from 
incurring these risks is entirely consistent with the effort which 
our Government is making to prevent attacks from submarines. 

RIOT WARNING A FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION 

"The use of one remedy does not exclude the use of the 
other. The most familiar illustration is to be found in the action 
taken by municipal authorities during a riot. It is the duty of 
the Mayor to suppress the mob and to prevent violence, but he 
does not hesitate to warn citizens to keep off the sterets during 
the riots. He does not question their right to use the streets, 
but for their own protection and in the interest of order, he 
warns them not to incur the risks involved in going upon the 
streets when men are shooting at each other. 

"The President docs not feel justified in taking the action 
above stated. That is, he does not feel justified — 



65 

"First, in suggesting the submission of the controversy to 

investigation, or 

"Second, in warning the people not to incur the extra hazards 
in traveling on belligerent ships or mi ships carrying ammunition. 



WILL PUT WILSON'S ATTITUDE UP T< » PUBLIC 

"And he may be right in the position he has taken, bul as a 
private citizen. I am free to urge both of these prop »sitions and 

In call public attention to these remedies in the hope of securing 
such an expression of public sentiment as will support the Presi- 
dent in employing these remedies, if, in the future, he finds it 
consistent with his sense of duty to favor them." 

Secretary Bryan said, in giving out his statement, thai while 
it mentioned only two points of difference, he reserved any others 
for presentation in the future. 



STATEMENT BY PROF. GEORGE W. ECIRCHWE^ 

Former Dean of the Law School, Columbia University, New 
York; Editor Historical Manuscripts for the Stale of New York: 

"It seems to me that Mr. Bryan's retirement from the Cabinet 
in the present crises is little short of a calamity, as it indicates 
the triumph of what a morning newspaper has called the 'war 
party' in the Administration at Washington. 

"As I interpret the expression, it doesn't mean that the Presi- 
dent or any of his advisers are bent on war with Germany. We 
know, on the contray, that they are sincerely desirous of keeping 
the Lmited States out of the conflict raging in the other half 
of the world. 



66 

"What it seems to signify is that the party that has prevailed 
over Mr. Bryan will entertain no way of dealing with Germany 
but the strenuous way — the German Government must squarely 
back down and accept the American interpretation of her rights 
as a belligerent or count us among her enemies. 

"This is a high and mighty attitude, and will be warmly wel- 
comed by our militant pro-Britons, who want to drag us into 
the war, as well as by multitudes of peace-loving Americans who 
identify national honor and dignity with a belligerent attitude 
toward foreign Powers with which we are at variance. 

"Personally, I believe the German position to be indefensible, 
just as I regarded the destruction of the Lustania as a gross vio- 
lation of neutral and human rights. 

"But the task of statesmanship is not to give forcible and 
threatening expression to our sentiments of wrath and indigna- 
tion ; still less to demand prompt recognition of -our principles 
of international morality. 

"It is rather to secure our rights by means which will not 
bring greater calamities upon us and upon the world. 

"Our true position in international affairs is that of trustee 
or guardian of neutral rights and of the sacred rights of humanity 
the world over. 

"The notion that this duty can best be fulfilled — the notion 
that it can be fulfilled at all — by adopting a course which leads 
to our embroilment in the war, is a fatal illusion. There can be 
no more certain way of betraying those rights. 

"There are other ways — ways to which we have again and 
again committed ourselves — by which our rights and the human 
rights which we hold in trust may be secured. Where is our 
'American policy' of arbitration in this crisis? 

"Why act alone instead of calling a conference of the neutral 
Powers to deal with a question which concerns them quite as 
much as it does us? 



67 

"Under the circumstances, then, I regard Mr. Bryan's resig- 
nation as a wise and patriotic act. 

"It is in effect an appeal to the people, who are now, for the 
first time, put in a position to determine whether they want a 
strenuous policy which is almost sure to lead to war or a policy 
of moderation and conciliation which may secure us our rights 
without war. 

"After all, the issue of peace or war for the United States is 
too big an issue to be left to any one man or any (/roup of men 
to determine. There is still time for the American people to make 
themselves heard." 



68 



Mr. Bryan's Statement 

Published June 11, 1915 



To the American People: 

"You now have before you the text of the note to Germany — 
the note which it would have been my official duty to sign had I 
remained Secretary of State. I ask you to sit in judgment upon 
my decision to resign rather than to share responsibility for it. 

"/ am sure you will credit me zvith honorable motives, but that 
is not enough. Good intentions could not atone for a mistake 
at such a time, on such a subject and under such circumstances. 
If your verdict is against me, I ask no mercy; I desire none if I 
have acted unwisely. 

"A man in public life must act according to his conscience, but 
hoiOever conscientiously he acts, he must be prepared to accept 
without complaint, any condemnation which his own errors may 
bring upon him; he must be willing to bear any deserved punish- 
ment, from ostracism to execution. But hear me before you pass 
sentence. 

"The President and T agree in purpose : We desire a peaceful 
solution of the dispute which has arisen between the United States 
and Germany. We not only desire it, but with equal fervor we 
pray for it. But we differ irreconcilably as to the means of 
securing it. 

"If it were merely a personal difference it would be a matter 
of little moment, for all the presumptions are on his side — the 
presumptions that go with power and authority. He is your 
President; I am a private citizen, without office or title, but one 
of the hundred millions of inhabitants. 



69 



REAL ISSUE BETWEEN FORCE AND PERSUASION 

"But the real issue is not between persons, it is between sys- 
tems ; and I rely for vindication wholly upon the strength of 
the position taken. 

"Among the influences which governments employ in dealing 
with each other, there are two which are pre-eminent and an- 
tagonistic — force and persuasion. Force speaks with firmness 
and acts through the ultimatum ; persuasion employs argument, 
courts investigation and depends upon negotiation. 

"Force represents the old system — the system that must pass 
away. Persuasion represents the new system — the system that 
has been growing — all too slowly, it is true, but growing — for 
nineteen hundred years. 

"In the old system war is the chief cornerstone — war which 
at its best is little better than war at its worst ; the new system 
contemplates an universal brotherhood established through the 
uplifting power of example. 

"If I correctly interpret the note to Germany it conforms to 
the standards of the old system rather than to the rules of the 
new, and I cheerfully admit that it is absolutely supported by 
precedents — precedents written in characters of blood upon almost 
every page of human history. 

"Austria furnishes the most recent precedent. It was Austria's 
firmness that dictated the ultimatum against Servia, which set 
the world at war. 

"Every ruler now participating in this unparalleled conflict has 
proclaimed his desire for peace and denied responsibility for the 
war, and it is only charitable that we should credit all of them 
with good faith. They desired peace, but they sought it accord- 
ing to the rules of the old system. They believed that firmness 
would give the best assurance of the maintenance of peace, and 
faithfully following precedent they went so near the fire that 
they were, one after another, sucked into the contest. 



70 



"FOLLIES OF FATAL SYSTEM REVEALED" 

"Never before have the frightful follies of this fatal system 
been so clearly revealed as now. The most civilized and en- 
lightened — aye, the most Christian — of the nations of Europe 
are grappling with each other as if in a death struggle. 

"They are sacrificing the best and bravest of their sons on the 
battlefield ; they are converting their gardens into cemeteries and 
their homes into houses of mourning; they are taxing the wealth 
of today and laying a burden of debt on the toil of the future ; 
they have filled the air with thunderbolts more deadly than those 
of Jove, and they have multiplied the perils of the deep. 

"Adding fresh fuel to the flame of hate, they have daily de- 
vised new horrors, until one side is endeavoring to drown non- 
combatent men, women and children at sea, while the other side 
seeks to starve non-combatant men, women and children on land. 

"And they are so absorbed in alternate retaliations and in 
competitive cruelties that they seem, for the time being, blind to 
the rights of neutrals and deaf to the appeals of humanity. A 
tree is known by its fruit. The war in Europe is the ripened 
fruit of the old system. 

"This is what firmness, supported by force, has done in the 
Old World. Shall we invite it to cross the Atlantic? Already 
the jingoes of our country have caught the rabies from the 
dogs of war ; shall the opponents of organized slaughter be silent 
while the disease spreads? 

U. S. SHOULD "LEAD WORLD OUT OF WAR" 

"As an humble follower of the Prince of Peace ; as a devoted 
believer in the prophecy that "they that take the sword shall 
perish with the sword," I beg to be counted among those who 
earnestly urge the adoption of a course in this matter which will 
leave no doubt of our Government's willingness to continue 
negotiations with Germany until an amicable understanding is 



71 

teached, or at least until, the stress of war over, we can appeal 
from Philip drunk with carnage to Philip sobered by the mem- 
ories of an historic friendship and by a recollection of the in- 
numerable ties of kinship that bind the Fatherland to the United 
States. 

"Some nation must lead the world out of the black night of 
war into the light of that day when 'swords shall be beaten into 
plowshares.' 

"Why not make the honor ours? Some day — why not new 
the nations will learn that enduring peace cannot be built upon 
fear, that good will does not grow upon the stalk of violence. 
Some day the nations will place their trust in Love, the weapon 
for which there is no shield ; in love, that suffereth long and is 
kind ; in love, that is not easily provoked, that beareth all things, 
believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; in love 
which, though despised as weakness by the worshippers of Mars, 
abideth when all else fails."— W. T. BRYAN. 






y^ 



L IBR«^ OF CONGRESS 



020 91A 061 



'5 j- 






